http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1567/bildschirmfoto20120426u.png
Click to start video (opens new window) (http://assange.rt.com/data/nasrallah-episode-one/en/640x360.ogv)



The Hezbollah party is currently a member of the Lebanese government. Its military wing has been described as “the most proficient guerrilla organisation in the world”. Under Nasrallah’s leadership, Hezbollah presided over the withdrawal of Israeli troops from South Lebanon in 2000, and the tactical victory against Israel in the war of Summer 2006. Sayyed Nasrallah has been named among the world’s most influential people by Time Magazine and Newsweek. His fame crosses sectarian divides and national borders, and he is revered and reviled by millions of people in the Middle East and all over the world.

This is the first English-language interview with Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah for over a decade. As turmoil spreads through the Middle East, Julian Assange interrogates Hassan Nasrallah on the hard issues, including Hezbollah’s stance on the conflict in Syria. Other topics covered include the relationship between Hezbollah’s media machine and military strategy, and the role of in politics and in everyday life. Assange engages with the frank views of a human Nasrallah, ordinarily portrayed either as demon or hero by the Western, Arab and global media.

Communicating via satellite link, both host and guest participate in the conversation from secret locations: Julian Assange from his temporary home in the English countryside, where he has been detained for 500 days without charge; Hassan Nasrallah, from a Lebanese Hezbollah stronghold, where he goes about his work under continual fear of assassination at the hands of state and non-state actors.

The show (http://worldtomorrow.wikileaks.org/index.html) is hosted and produced by RT, previously known as Russia today. Because free speech doesn't come from the land of the free anymore.

Have you seen the rest of Russia Today programming? It's basically anti-west propaganda but I find it amusing to watch.

I prefer Robert Fisk's interview with Nasrallah.
~17:00
8A1SZ2OSWnI

Have you seen the rest of Russia Today programming? It's basically anti-west propaganda but I find it amusing to watch.

well, have you seen US-TV programming?
basically anti-muslim propaganda without any journalism going on.

Because free speech doesn't come from the land of the free anymore.

I am not sure what this has got to do with free speech,

what we have is a man with charges against him (I can remember the exact charges, but they relate to a women) in a scandanavian country (I cant remember the country) interviewing the leader of what I consider to be a terrorist organisation on a russian TV channel (a country that has bumbed of the odd journalist in its time)

will I watch the vidoe, no because I have no desire to listen to what a man who has said some fairly anti-semitic stuff in his time has to say.

Julian Assange, the self-proclaimed champion of free speech, working for the Russian government, that arrests and threatens journalists routinely.

Good one, Assange. Your fanboys will look rather stupid now.

I hardly think RT merely broadcasting Assange's World Tomorrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tomorrow)interviews means that he "works" for them. It simply means that the second most-watched foreign news source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)) in the US decided to carry them.

I really don't understand why some are so upset about the free dissemination of information regarding controversial topics such as this. While RT has been accused of propagandizing on occasion, so have many Rupert Murdoch owned media sources. I certainly didn't find anything offensive or propagandizing about this particular interview. It is really not that much different than the Robert Fisk interview.

I haven't watched the Assange interview yet, but during the Fisk interview Nasrallah barely made any mention about Judaism. The topic was essentialy him talking about martyrdom and the struggle against the state of Israel (not the Jews!).

Nasrallah has differnet messages, one for western journalists and another in his native tongue

I really don't understand why some are so upset about the free dissemination of information regarding controversial topics such as this. While RT has been accused of propagandizing on occasion, so have many Rupert Murdoch owned media sources.

It is interesting to see how some people tend to treat state-owned media as automatically suspect and privately-owned media as somehow inherently more trustworthy, as if privately-owned media aren't guilty of bias, misinformation, sensationalism, fearmongering, propaganda, breaches of ethics or outright lies or susceptible to outside (including government, corporate, lobbyist) interference.

That said, even by the standards of bad news RT is quite, quite bad. Don't know what Assange is thinking agreeing to be on it, though given the treatment that the West is giving him he may not have had much choice.

Nasrallah has differnet messages, one for western journalists and another in his native tongue

Indeed. In fact, he has different messages tailored to suit just about every tastes: Westerner, Israeli, Jewish, Arab, Lebanese, Palestinian, Sunni, Shiite, Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Extremist, Militant, Pacifist, Children, Teenagers, Adults, Urban, Rural, Poor, Middle Class, Rich, Refugee, Migrant, Isolationist, Interventionist. Hezbollah as an organisation is similarly chameleonesque. Power is really the only thing that interests these people; all else are just flavours.

It is interesting to see how some people tend to treat state-owned media as automatically suspect and privately-owned media as somehow inherently more trustworthy, as if privately-owned media aren't guilty of bias, misinformation, sensationalism, fearmongering, propaganda, breaches of ethics or outright lies or susceptible to outside (including government, corporate, lobbyist) interference.

That said, even by the standards of bad news RT is quite, quite bad. Don't know what Assange is thinking agreeing to be on it, though given the treatment that the West is giving him he may not have had much choice.


Eh, my problem with RT is not that its is state-owned. BBC is state-owned, and it's quite reliable in my book. RT is bad because it's a propaganda tool of the Russian government, by working for them Assange agreed to be a propaganda tool as well.

That said, even by the standards of bad news RT is quite, quite bad. Don't know what Assange is thinking agreeing to be on it, though given the treatment that the West is giving him he may not have had much choice.I don't they are as "bad" as that. I have posted their videos on this forum a number of times simply because they were one of the few media organizations which would even discuss the topic from the other perspective.

RT just seems far more willing than most to give a platform to people like Assange and Nasrallah who wish to discuss highly unpopular topics in the US and elsewhere. And as I pointed out above, they are the second most watched foreign TV source in the US. That gives Assange a far larger audience than many other media organizations would.

Indeed. In fact, he has different messages tailored to suit just about every tastes: Westerner, Israeli, Jewish, Arab, Lebanese, Palestinian, Sunni, Shiite, Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Extremist, Militant, Pacifist, Children, Teenagers, Adults, Urban, Rural, Poor, Middle Class, Rich, Refugee, Migrant, Isolationist, Interventionist. Hezbollah as an organisation is similarly chameleonesque. Power is really the only thing that interests these people; all else are just flavours.I don't see that at all. They seem to be quite consistent in their views, especially Nasrallah. But it is difficult to discern because we are rarely given any opportunity to hear of them and their concerns. You can hardly blame him for merely addressing the questions which he was asked.

_WK3HbXwN0k

I think any world leader should have a platform to address their views no matter how controversial or offensive some may find those opinions. We can't very well address the issues without even knowing what they are.

Nasrallah has differnet messages, one for western journalists and another in his native tongue

Indeed. In fact, he has different messages tailored to suit just about every tastes: Westerner, Israeli, Jewish, Arab, Lebanese, Palestinian, Sunni, Shiite, Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Extremist, Militant, Pacifist, Children, Teenagers, Adults, Urban, Rural, Poor, Middle Class, Rich, Refugee, Migrant, Isolationist, Interventionist. Hezbollah as an organisation is similarly chameleonesque. Power is really the only thing that interests these people; all else are just flavours.

As opposed to anyone else in politics? Though Nasrallah is probably one of the more consistent public figures out there.

Eh, my problem with RT is not that its is state-owned. BBC is state-owned, and it's quite reliable in my book. RT is bad because it's a propaganda tool of the Russian government, by working for them Assange agreed to be a propaganda tool as well.
It's not that easy luiz. Assange can cooperate with this "propaganda tool" and still produce solid work in his own right. And as Formaldehyde correctly notes, the video of the OP isn't demonstrating otherwise. If simply giving Nasrallah a voice qualifies already as propaganda, than I would suggest to over think where the actual propaganda lies.

I am glad to see Assange well and kicking. Those rape charges were an outrageous tool of foreign policy for all I can tell and it is sad how the media doesn't seem to mind.

Assange is still around? Cool, cool.

I do wish he could get a BBC spot, though. That would be so much more helpful for him.

It's not that easy luiz. Assange can cooperate with this "propaganda tool" and still produce solid work in his own right. And as Formaldehyde correctly notes, the video of the OP isn't demonstrating otherwise. If simply giving Nasrallah a voice qualifies already as propaganda, than I would suggest to over think where the actual propaganda lies.

I am glad to see Assange well and kicking. Those rape charges were an outrageous tool of foreign policy for all I can tell and it is sad how the media doesn't seem to mind.

By accepting a job at a notorious propaganda tool owned by a government notorious for its repression of the press he made himself quite deserving of criticism. Sometimes it is that easy.

Let him make a single episode investigating Putin and I'll take what I said back. But he won't. We can expect a lot of anti-american, anti-israeli crap, though.

So, you ignore what I argued and go on how much you hate Russia Today. Great.
edit: Though I must admit that near the end the interview turns strikingly friendly towards Nasrallah.

Can anyone who dislikes RT point to cases of it specifically broadcasting "propaganda pieces".

I see a strong biased against the U.S., but I do not see them lying to fit their agenda (whatever that may be) specifically.

These are good news, IMO.
Assange working on RT will hopefully increase popularity of the channel, which ultimately will improve Russia's image in the world and provide Americans with better coverage of world news from different sources.

RT improves Russia's public perception just as Fox News improves America's.

Well, admittedly I don't watch it much, but I was thinking the better analogue would be "Voice of America"? Fox News is more for internal usage.

As opposed to anyone else in politics? Though Nasrallah is probably one of the more consistent public figures out there.

Perhaps I was wrong in saying he isn't consistent in his message of hate, I was more talking about the language he uses to a western front (more toned down) than to a more native audience, which is worse than just offensive.

As far as Assagne is concerned I find him a little creepy, though I dont expect any of my views to make any difference to their supporters and cheerleaders on here.

Well, admittedly I don't watch it much, but I was thinking the better analogue would be "Voice of America"? Fox News is more for internal usage.
Don't know much about Voice of America, and I wasn't referring to their intent, but journalistic standard. News media of poor journalistic standard tend to reflect poorly on that which they wish to promote.

Perhaps I was wrong in saying he isn't consistent in his message of hate, I was more talking about the language he uses to a western front (more toned down) than to a more native audience, which is worse than just offensive.

I'm pretty sure that would make him inconsistent, not consistent.

This is pretty hilarious.

Have you seen the rest of Russia Today programming? It's basically anti-west propaganda but I find it amusing to watch.

Agreed. RT makes the National Review seem moderate in its bias. Also, I'd rather not hear a clever retort about the quality of American journalism. There are no American organizations that bed with the White House as RT does with the Kremlin. That pro-Putin organization surely can't be qualified as news anymore than presstv.ir. Any attempt to make a valid comparison between Russia Today and the American news media in general (as the OP has foolishly attempted to do) would be rougher than a badger's ass. To provide evidence, I'll first point out that Assange was not unilaterally denounced by the American media. Rather, only right-wing organizations (which are relatively few in number) fretted over the Wikileaks incident, while most harped with the opportunity of receiving classified information.

The Cold War is now over. It has been for over two decades now.

Just check out their shows with talking heads, their equivalent of CNNs Anderson Cooper and others. It is downright ridiculous the lengths they go to discredit the West and NATO. It is almost like watching Fox News. So bad its goooood.

It's not so much that they have to go to ridiculous lengths to discredit the West- that's piss-easy, a child could do that- it's that they have to go to ridiculous lengths to discredit the West without similarly implicating Russia and its allies. And that's much trickier.

We aren't now an ally of Russia, or at least cordial with them? Who are their allies?

Why is it so controversial to report about news stories such as these?

CISPA: A 'vaguely-defined' bill against an 'imaginary threat' (http://rt.com/usa/news/cispa-imaginary-bill-samuel-181/)

Police vs Protester: Feds sending armed agents to Chicago three weeks before NATO Summit (http://rt.com/usa/news/agents-chicago-nato-federal-161/)

They are the top two stories about the US today:

http://rt.com/

I just wish the US press would report about similar matters instead of what Sarah Palin is now thinking.

Why are so many people apparently so fearful about whom Julian Assange interviews and what Nasrallah thinks? Shouldn't a major US news source carry these interviews instead a foreign one?

We aren't now an ally of Russia, or at least cordial with them? Who are their allies?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSTO

To some extent,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

I'm still trying to figure out why Russia isn't now a member of NATO. After all, they are already a member of G20 and G8. Is someone afraid they will steal our military secrets that they already know?

I'm still trying to figure out why Russia isn't now a member of NATO. Afer all, they are already a member of G20 and G8. Is someone afraid they will steal our military secrets that they already know?
Russia wasn't accepted there, despite several attempts to join, starting from USSR. This is probably the main reason why Russia now is seeking alliance with China.
NATO was created against us in the first place, and the U.S. has unchallenged leadership role there, which they apparently want to retain. Countries such as Russia, China or India don't fit there much.

I just wish the US press would report about similar matters instead of what Sarah Palin is now thinking.
Nah, you just picked a good day. I went on there the other day and they had a story which was practically claiming that Barack Obama fabricated the killing of Osama bin Laden so he could relieve scrutiny regarding his birth certificate. It gets worse. They actually called the United States 'the American Empire' in another article. I'll see if I can fish these up for you.


Why are so many people apparently so fearful about whom Julian Assange interviews and what Nasrallah thinks?

Who's fearful? I think it's stupid that Assange would appear as an activist for decreased transparency and all that and then go on to work for a news station that is undeniably supportive of Moscow of all places. Any attempt to compare the democratic system of the United States to that of Russia is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, the Russian Federation is rated 117.

Nah, you just picked a good day. I went on there the other day and they had a story which was practically claiming that Barack Obama fabricated the killing of Osama bin Laden so he could relieve scrutiny regarding his birth certificate. It gets worse. They actually called the United States 'the American Empire' in another article. I'll see if I can fish these up for you.Please do. And what is so offensive about "the American Empire"? Would you disagree the US continually engages in imperialism and hegemony, especially under Republican administrations?

Do you have any examples of how Russia now does this on such a massive scale?

Who's fearful? I think it's stupid that Assange would appear as an activist for decreased transparency and all that and then go on to work for a news station that is undeniably supportive of Moscow of all places. Any attempt to compare the democratic system of the United States to that of Russia is absolutely ridiculous. I mean, the Russian Federation is rated 117.So your argument is that the news organization in a country that isn't supposedly as democratic as the US shouldn't point out how they are so authoritarian on so many occasions, especially when the American media frequently ignores it while the rest of the world doesn't? That the US government is renown worldwide for being so hypocritical and is frequently criticized on that basis by most countries that aren't our "allies"? How the US government frequently gives a free pass to countries which are supposedly our "allies", while criticizing those who aren't on the same basis?

Again, why isn't any US news organization carrying his interviews instead? Don't you think that is the real problem here?

And what is so offensive about "the American Empire"?
Well you seem to misunderstand the framing of this argument (at least what is now an argument). Your post was one that defended RT's bias (which I alleged) and your evidence was that you couldn't find an instance on yesterday's website that demonstrated such bias. My claim that I had seen instances of bias seemed to have been received, so I take it that you agree that RT is biased. This conception might be important later on.

Now to address what's offensive about that term: first, the word "offensive" is probably only in place for the sake of convenience and loaded wording. The connotations that that word invokes are not suitable for the situation at hand. I could be wrong about your intentions, but I'd still re-word the question so that it reads "what is so inaccurate about the 'American Empire?". Really, I'm not in the position to claim that the US is not an Empire, I'm simply pointing out that RT continually engages in nationalism and chauvinism, especially when regarding Putin's administrations. The issue I had, which I referred to in my previous post, to elaborate on it (which I assume is your ultimate intention with that comment), I'll point out that there is no such country as "the American Empire" and that country is actually called "the United States". Calling it "the American Empire" is misleading and juvenile, no matter how Imperialistic you think the country actually is. This links back to the misunderstood argument that I mentioned earlier. Traitorfish sums it up:
it's that they have to go to ridiculous lengths to discredit the West without similarly implicating Russia and its allies. And that's much trickier.

I'd also like to point out how it's quite amusing that one person who may support a position (RT is biased) is assumed to uphold another (USA #1).

Would you disagree the US continually engages in imperialism and hegemony, especially under Republican administrations?

Do you have any examples of how Russia now does this on such a massive scale?

This is basically a red herring which serves to detract from RT's undeniable bias. The issue has been covered above.

So your argument is that the news organization in a country that isn't supposedly as democratic as the US
There's nothing supposed about it. That's just fact. More loaded wording on your part. :rolleyes:

So your argument is that the news organization in a country that isn't supposedly as democratic as the US shouldn't point out how they are so authoritarian on so many occasions, especially when the American media frequently ignores it while the rest of the world doesn't? That the US government is renown worldwide for being so hypocritical and is frequently criticized on that basis by most countries that aren't our "allies"? How the US government frequently gives a free pass to countries which are supposedly our "allies", while criticizing those who aren't on the same basis?
No. My real argument is that Assange is a hypocrite for working for a propaganda network. Also, do you think Assange would have been received with open arms by the Russian government had he leaked information about their military? Without being able to claim that Russia has a better track record in terms of free speech than the US (I've provided evidence that it doesn't), you can't defend Assange's choice without conceding his hypocrisy. Plus, as I observed above, you haven't succeeding in refuting RT's bias so this point clearly goes through.

Again, why isn't any US news organization carrying his interviews instead? Don't you think that is the real problem here?
Why are you making that sound as if it's a great enigma? How many countries aren't carrying his interviews? As far as I'm concerned, there are 195 countries not carrying his interviews. Must be western propaganda at work, huh? Assange ins't an American anyway.

Double post. Please delete.

Well you seem to misunderstand the framing of this argument (at least what is now an argument). Your post was one that defended RT's bias (which I alleged) and your evidence was that you couldn't find an instance on yesterday's website that demonstrated such bias. My claim that I had seen instances of bias seemed to have been received, so I take it that you agree that RT is biased. This conception might be important later on.I am not only not "defending" their bias, I fully admit it exists, as it does with virtually any other news organization. I just think it is overstated by those who want to peremptorily dismiss their news stories and the POV they present, which is frequently at odds with the conservative bias that predominates American news sources. I frequently hear the same criticism about even Al Jazeera, and you previously mentioned Iran's news agency. I would contend they should all be viewed, as well as even Fox News and any other Rupert Murdoch media source.

Where I draw the line is intentionally deceiving the public and propagandizing. That should obviously get massive criticism because it shows a lack of journalistic integrity. But I certainly don't see that in this particular case, nor do I see it with them discussing "the American Empire".

Now to address what's offensive about that term: first, the word "offensive" is probably only in place for the sake of convenience and loaded wording. The connotations that that word invokes are not suitable for the situation at hand. I could be wrong about your intentions, but I'd still re-word the question so that it reads "what is so inaccurate about the 'American Empire?". Really, I'm not in the position to claim that the US is not an Empire, I'm simply pointing out that RT continually engages in nationalism and chauvinism, especially when regarding Putin's administrations. The issue I had, which I referred to in my previous post, to elaborate on it (which I assume is your ultimate intention with that comment), I'll point out that there is no such country as "the American Empire" and that country is actually called "the United States". Calling it "the American Empire" is misleading and juvenile, no matter how Imperialistic you think the country actually is. This links back to the misunderstood argument that I mentioned earlier. Traitorfish sums it up:Calling it "misleading and juvenile" is an interesting personal opinion, but I would contend it is hardly ever heard outside the confines of the US except for a few staunch US "allies". As I already pointed out, much of the world perceives the US in exactly the same way and for good reason.

If you google "American empire", the very first link is a wiki disambiguation that resolves to this web page:

American imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism)

Chalmers Johnson argues that America's version of the colony is the military base.[38] Chip Pitts argues similarly that enduring U.S. bases in Iraq suggest a vision of "Iraq as a colony".[39]

There have also been conflicting reports made by U.S. government officials as to how many military bases actually exist outside the country.[40]

While territories such as Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico remain under U.S. control, the U.S. allowed many of its overseas territories or occupations to gain independence after World War II. Examples include the Philippines (1946), the Panama canal zone (1979), Palau (1981), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), and the Marshall Islands (1986). Most of them still have U.S. bases within their territories. In the case of Okinawa, which came under U.S. administration after the battle of Okinawa during World War II, this happened despite local popular opinion.[41] As of 2003, the United States had bases in over 36 countries worldwide.[42]

Even Max Boot and Charles Krautheimer admit as much:

Max Boot defends U.S. imperialism by claiming: "U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing." Boot willingly used "imperialism" to describe United States policy, not only in the early 20th century but "since at least 1803".[43][44]

Columnist Charles Krauthammer says, "People are now coming out of the closet on the word 'empire.'" This embrace of empire is made by many neoconservatives, including British historian Paul Johnson, and writers Dinesh D'Souza and Mark Steyn. It is also made by some liberal hawks, such as political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Michael Ignatieff.[45]

And here is CBS News discussing the matter:

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-7121029.html)

Future historians are likely to identify the Bush administration's rash invasion of Iraq in that year as the start of America's downfall. However, instead of the bloodshed that marked the end of so many past empires, with cities burning and civilians slaughtered, this twenty-first century imperial collapse could come relatively quietly through the invisible tendrils of economic collapse or cyberwarfare.

But have no doubt: when Washington's global dominion finally ends, there will be painful daily reminders of what such a loss of power means for Americans in every walk of life. As a half-dozen European nations have discovered, imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society, regularly bringing at least a generation of economic privation. As the economy cools, political temperatures rise, often sparking serious domestic unrest.

Are they all also "misleading and juvenile" for merely stating the obvious?

And why did you only extract one portion of his quote?

It's not so much that they have to go to ridiculous lengths to discredit the West- that's piss-easy, a child could do that- it's that they have to go to ridiculous lengths to discredit the West without similarly implicating Russia and its allies. And that's much trickier.Emphasis mine.

Traitorfish is actually pointing out that they are shooting fish in a barrel by pointing out the obvious hypocrisy and faults with the US government, while at the same time doing their best to ignore that Russia also shares many of the same problems. Again, I hardly dispute it. But I don't think that should stop them from publicizing our own faults, which are so frequently ignored by our own mainstream media simply because the overt hypocrisy tends to upset their viewers.

I'd also like to point out how it's quite amusing that one person who may support a position (RT is biased) is assumed to uphold another (USA #1). It is not pointing out that RT is biased that makes me think that. It is all the other comments, such as characterizing those who think the US still engages in imperialism and hegemony when it obviously still does as "misleading and juvenile", which does.

This is basically a red herring which serves to detract from RT's undeniable bias. The issue has been covered above. No, it was a direct question to determine if you thought Russia was guilty of massive imperialism and hegemony, as many claimed the USSR was doing during the Cold War. It was actually in response to the point that Traitorfish made above. In this particular case, they don't really have to go to "ridiculous lengths" because Russia no longer really engages in any policies that could be seen in the same light on such a massive scale.

There's nothing supposed about it. That's just fact. More loaded wording on your part. :rolleyes:There are many ways that the US isn't as "democratic" as many claim it to be. It continues to become more authoritarian instead of less. That Assange apparently had to go to RT to find someone to carry his interviews only confirms this.

No. My real argument is that Assange is a hypocrite for working for a propaganda network. Also, do you think Assange would have been received with open arms by the Russian government had he leaked information about their military? Without being able to claim that Russia has a better track record in terms of free speech than the US (I've provided evidence that it doesn't), you can't defend Assange's choice without conceding his hypocrisy. Plus, as I observed above, you haven't succeeding in refuting RT's bias so this point clearly goes through.I don't "defend" his "choice". As I have already pointed out, Assange apparently had little choice since the inteviews were not picked up by any mainstream media. I'm sure he tried. Do you have any evidence he didn't?

Ironically, it is likely for the reason you gave above about the reaction they would probably have of him divulging Russian "secrets". Many Americans consider him to be a traitor for merely divulging highly embarrassing "secret" communications which should have been made public long ago after redacting the actual sensitive information from them, instead of assuming they would be hidden from view by classifying them. This is the avenue which many prominent American news organizations have decided to take, such as the NY Times.

I would contend that is actually what should occur in any country which claims to have a free press. They should disseminate all opposing views instead of only those which reflect positively on the foreign affairs of their own government. There should be no need for people like Julian Assange to have to go to the press of a foreign country to merely find a forum for his controversial interviews.

And you still haven't provided a source to corroborate this previous claim:

I went on there the other day and they had a story which was practically claiming that Barack Obama fabricated the killing of Osama bin Laden so he could relieve scrutiny regarding his birth certificate.

I am not only not "defending" their bias, I fully admit it exists, as it does with virtually any other news organization. I just think it is overstated by those who want to peremptorily dismiss their news stories and the POV they present, which is frequently at odds with the conservative bias that predominates American news sources. I frequently hear the same criticism about even Al Jazeera, and you previously mentioned Iran's news agency. I would contend they should all be viewed, as well as even Fox News and any other Rupert Murdoch media source.

I don't care about any of that. I'm just pointing out that RT is biased and Assange is a hypocrite for hosting a program on an unabashed pro-Moscow news network even though the man himself tries to portray himself as an advocate for free speech. How can one honestly claim such a characterization when working for an organization which provides propaganda for a nation that is far from democratic (according to the stat I provided which seems to be conceded by you). You can't actually contend that Russia's democratic system is even comparable to that of the United States. You seem to think that I'm in the position to defend the actions of Fox news (which is one news station within the hurculean American media), which I'm not. The American media is very biased. Most news networks are very biased. But ultimately, it is better for an organization's bias to lay with a nation that is democratic and in this comparison between the United States and Russia, the US is indeed more democratic than Russia which thus makes acts of bias that take place in the US less despicable than their Russian counterparts.

Also, you seem to have this perception that the American media doesn't report on imperialistic policies and this notion is completely false and could only be founded by someone who exclusively watches the Murdoch networks. I would like to point out that later on in your post, you cited CBS in the article entitled "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire" which thus proves my point that the American media isn't all that patriotic. I quote you, "conservative bias that predominates American news sources". But I beg you, please don't make this last section of my post into a major point of contention because I really only put it in place to show that he American media is not as patriotic as you're trying to make it sound. I'm not looking for the debate to gravitate towards the argument regarding the greatest bias of the American media, but it's definitely more pluralistic than you're trying to make it seem.

Calling it "misleading and juvenile" is an interesting personal opinion, but I would contend it is hardly ever heard outside the confines of the US except for a few staunch US "allies". As I already pointed out, much of the world perceives the US in exactly the same way and for good reason.

Like I said in my previous post, you're attempting to frame this debate in a way such that I'm the position to defend the US's policies or to claim that these policies are not imperialistic. This is not the case. I've never made any denial that it's imperialistic. You're simply making a rash assumption based on your previous experiences with individuals who may have shared several of my views and then connecting multiple opinions while trying to argue against them. The reason that calling the US "the American Empire" is "juvenile and misleading" is because of:
a.) It's childlike to call a country by a name when that country does not recognize that name. The British Empire called itself that (Order of the British Empire and so on) which makes its usage in that circumstance permissible. However, the US is known by the name "the United States" and has not conceded to that term. This leads to the second point,
b.) An Empire is not simply a nation that has imperialistic policies. An Empire is ruled by a monarchy or an oligarchy and also meets the criteria of using unequal and hegemonic. You see, there are several criteria a nation must reach before it is an Empire. Imperialism in itself ("the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination" from wikipedia) can be detached from the definition of an empire and a country that does not posses the first criteria can still be imperialistic but it is still not an Empire. It is misleading to call the US an Empire because it implies that the country meets the first criteria, which it does not. You can argue that the US does meet the criteria if you wish, but I'll point out that the US is still ranked 98 countries ahead of Russia on the democracy index and if RT wants to call the US an empire it should also call Russia the "Russian Empire" and failing to do so would be equally misleading.

If you google "American empire", the very first link is a wiki disambiguation that resolves to this web page:

American imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism)



Even Max Boot and Charles Krautheimer admit as much:



And here is CBS News discussing the matter:

The Decline and Fall of the American Empire (http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-215_162-7121029.html)



Are they all also "misleading and juvenile" for merely stating the obvious?
You misunderstood my position regarding the term "American Empire" and thus you're links are irrelevant. I've made no claim that the US is not imperialistic, rather that it is not an empire. My position is manifested in the above response.

And why did you only extract one portion of his quote?

For the same reason I've explained. Only the second part of the quote was relevant to the actual debate, not the one you're forcing down my throat.
it's that they have to go to ridiculous lengths to discredit the West without similarly implicating Russia and its allies.

Emphasis mine.

Traitorfish is actually pointing out that they are shooting fish in a barrel by pointing out the obvious hypocrisy and faults with the US government, while at the same time doing their best to ignore that Russia also shares many of the same problems. Again, I hardly dispute it. But I don't think that should stop them from publicizing our own faults, which are so frequently ignored by our own mainstream media simply because the overt hypocrisy tends to upset their viewers.
I disagree with the bolded part of this section. If RT will criticize the west for imperialism, it should have the decency and balance to put at least some effort into pointing out Russia's own faults. Take the South Ossetian War for instance in which RT gets an F for its coverage.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2008/aug/12/russiantvreporterresignsaf
After William Dunbar, a correspondent for the English-language state channel Russia Today, mentioned the bombing in a report on Saturday, his scheduled reports later that day were cancelled by the station. He said: "I felt that I had no choice but to resign."


It is not pointing out that RT is biased that makes me think that. It is all the other comments, such as characterizing those who think the US still engages in imperialism and hegemony when it obviously still does as "misleading and juvenile", which does.
This is a result of your misunderstanding of my comment which I've addressed above.

It was actually in response to the point that Traitorfish made above.

No it wasn't.

No, it was a direct question to determine if you thought Russia was guilty of massive imperialism and hegemony, as many claimed the USSR was doing during the Cold War. It was actually in response to the point that Traitorfish made above. In this particular case, they don't really have to go to "ridiculous lengths" because Russia no longer really engages in any policies that could be seen in the same light on such a massive scale.
What Russia lacks in imperialism it gains in it's failure as a democracy. It engages in imperialistic activity nonetheless. And the only reason you asked this question was to serve the purpose of misrepresenting my position so that I have to defend American imperialism. Red herring if you ask me.

There are many ways that the US isn't as "democratic" as many claim it to be. It continues to become more authoritarian instead of less.
Uh huh. You're post claimed that the Russia wasn't "supposedly" as democratic as the US not that the US wasn't as "supposedly" democratic as it actually is. "Supposedly" =

According to what is generally assumed or believed (often used to indicate that the speaker doubts the truth of the statement).
(google definition)
My claim stands.


That Assange apparently had to go to RT to find someone to carry his interviews only confirms this.
Let me bring up a part of my previous post that you failed to respond to:
Why are you making that sound as if it's a great enigma? How many countries aren't carrying his interviews? As far as I'm concerned, there are 195 countries not carrying his interviews. Must be western propaganda at work, huh? Assange isn't an American anyway.


I don't "defend" his "choice". As I have already pointed out, Assange apparently had little choice since the inteviews were not picked up by any mainstream media. I'm sure he tried. Do you have any evidence he didn't?
Do you have any evidence that he did? I'm sure you must. This is a wash point.

Also, RT is mainstream media. It's the second most watched foreign news station in the US and it's youtube channel has 700 million views (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)).

Plus, how does the fact that news stations not wanting to host a guy that they know will upset their audiences (which you asserted previously: "because the overt hypocrisy tends to upset their viewers") in any way relate the the lack of democracy that you're trying to claim is present in the US? It sounds that viewer ratings are the most comprehensive way to gauge public opinion (which is the foundation of democracy). Basically, you're point, which you've claimed several times now, that US media organizations are somehow undemocratic for not wanting to host Assange, is both a wash and contradictory towards your previous values. You keep posing the question of "why isn't his interview being carried by a US organization?" when there are several answers. Americans don't like him. It's not that he's a traitor, because he's not American, but he's something along those lines. These views are in no way purported as a result of American propaganda, but simply patriotism. Call Americans ignorant for being patriotic and I'll agree with you. The diversity in available media present in the United States, which is virtually accessible to almost everyone, shows that Americans prefer to watch stations which conform to their views over those that don't. If Fox held his interviews then their viewers would all float to some other station which would conform to their views instead. There's no contention between the free press and Assange's ability of find a major news revenue to host his show. I know you'll point out "well then, RT obviously isn't a propaganda network because the Russian public will just go somewhere else if they don't get their daily dose of BS everyday". My response to this claim is this: RT wasn't created out of any existing demand and it's government funded which is not a characteristic of independent news organizations present in the US. Thus, the desired policies of the Russian Federation are far more advocated for and misrepresented than those of the US government, simply because there is no government funded US news organization. Russia is ranked 142 on the Free Press index which goes to show how the American press is considerably more free than that of Russia. The fact that the US press fails to host the opinions of people that are quite radical by Western standards does not display an inherent violation of the free press. However, consistent misrepresentation of information and the considerable objective of supporting Russian policies, characteristics of RT, show how Assange is all the more hypocritical for choosing to hold his venue on that network.

Like I've said previously, I don't know why you assume that an American organization should have hosted Assange's show. Was Assange even looking for a show? How do you know that the propaganda network didn't offer him the job on it's own? Why don't you blame the news organizations of the Europe or other North American countries for not hosting the show?


Ironically, it is likely for the reason you gave above about the reaction they would probably have of him divulging Russian "secrets". Many Americans consider him to be a traitor for merely divulging highly embarrassing "secret" communications which should have been made public long ago after redacting the actual sensitive information from them, instead of assuming they would be hidden from view by classifying them. This is the avenue which many prominent American news organizations have decided to take, such as the NY Times.
What's ironic is that an activist for transparency in government and democracy would host his show on a propaganda network.

I would contend that is actually what should occur in any country which claims to have a free press. They should disseminate all opposing views instead of only those which reflect positively on the foreign affairs of their own government. There should be no need for people like Julian Assange to have to go to the press of a foreign country to merely find a forum for his controversial interviews.
The fact that Russia is ranked considerably lower than the US on the Free Press index (although the US's ranking on that list is far from fabulous) shows that the availability of information is far greater than you're trying to make it out to be. The American media does "disseminate" all opposing views, just not at the mainstream level which Assange wishes to be viewed upon. As for the part which I bolded, Assange is Australian so the US is just as foreign as Russia is.


And you still haven't provided a source to corroborate this previous claim:
I haven't had the best of luck finding it.

Assange did an interview with David Horowitz on RT where the latter said something unflattering about Putin and it appeared on the program. So, to be fair, Assange's high profile may allow him to bypass certain censorship restrictions.

My response to this claim is this: RT wasn't created out of any existing demand and it's government funded which is not a characteristic of independent news organizations present in the US. Thus, the desired policies of the Russian Federation are far more advocated for and misrepresented than those of the US government, simply because there is no government funded US news organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
Voice of America (VOA) is the official external broadcast institution of the United States federal government.
The VOA Charter states: "VOA news will be accurate, objective and comprehensive."[2] However, the service has been criticized as an instrument of American propaganda.
...
Under § 501 of the Smith–Mundt Act of 1948, the Voice of America is forbidden to broadcast directly to American citizens.[34] The intent of the legislation is to protect the American public from propaganda actions by its own government.[35]

As for usage of the term "American Empire", you gave it as example of RT's anti-western rhetoric and propaganda.
Link to CBS article with the same headline seems to completely refute this particular example.
I'm not saying that there is no bias at all, but you would need to provide another example to back up this assertion.

It is unrealistic to expect media to provide an unbiased view as they cover things they believe of interest and in such a way as to present their point of view. To think of it as anything other than that is foolish. The argument thst something is more biased or less is pointless as much as is arguing what is more humaine squashing a bug with your left foot or with your right foot. Get your news from multiple sources and from multiple perspective for a balanced view, if this is what you desire, otherwise stick with the media that closely matches you idealogical and political views.

With regards to assange going with RT, and how he is somehow less credible or respected... Well think on that. He wants to be seen and viewed plus make money. US news plus other western global companies dont dare touch him with a 10 foot pole, so that is out for him. Al jazeera, due to islamophobia is as watched. So, who then? Oh yeah, RT. They gots the monies, they gots the reach. They will let him do his thing within limits, boundaries and limitations (cesar milano style), but do you expect something different from the people who foot the bill? Nope. That's the way the world turns.

And to the comment on how assange got friendly with that hezbalah dude. What did you expect, a spit in the face? Good luck getting anyone else to come on his show. Did you expect hard "OMFG he asked him that?" Type questions? You must know questions were sent pre interview, agreements were made what to ask and what not to ask. This the way it is.

You have to be a scinic (spl??) Or you get dissapointed every time.

As for usage of the term "American Empire", you gave it as example of RT's anti-western rhetoric and propaganda.
Link to CBS article with the same headline seems to completely refute this particular example.
I'm not saying that there is no bias at all, but you would need to provide another example to back up this assertion.

It certainly isn't the only one either. Here are a few of the hundreds of other similar references:

Guardian: Decline and fall of the American empire (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jun/06/us-economy-decline-recovery-challenges)

The Nation: The Decline and Fall of the American Empire (http://www.thenation.com/article/156851/decline-and-fall-american-empire)

UCPress: American Empire (http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520243385)

Crossing The Rubicon: The Decline Of The American Empire At The End Of The Age Of Oil (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=american+empire&hl=en&prmd=imvnsb&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1312&bih=754&ix=acb&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=3210186896837072497&sa=X&ei=pYefT83rK8zptgeZp6zeBA&ved=0CH0Q8wIwCw)

Al Jazeera: The decline of the American empire (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/empire/2011/12/2011122285418789367.html)

Arn3lF5XSUg

But it is clear they are quite biased, as are most media sources.

It is unrealistic to expect media to provide an unbiased view as they cover things they believe of interest and in such a way as to present their point of view. To think of it as anything other than that is foolish. The argument thst something is more biased or less is pointless as much as is arguing what is more humaine squashing a bug with your left foot or with your right foot. Get your news from multiple sources and from multiple perspective for a balanced view, if this is what you desire, otherwise stick with the media that closely matches you idealogical and political views.The only commercial media source in the US which goes out of its way to not be biased at present is CNN. And they have largely traded that for blatant sensationalism in their desire to increase the number of viewers so they can increase their ad revenue.

Russia wasn't accepted there, despite several attempts to join, starting from USSR. This is probably the main reason why Russia now is seeking alliance with China.
NATO was created against us in the first place, and the U.S. has unchallenged leadership role there, which they apparently want to retain. Countries such as Russia, China or India don't fit there much.

The USSR attempted to join the NATO in like 1949, when the NATO was just created as a talking forum and only became a true military alliance after 1955, which unsurprisingly was also around the same time the Warsaw pact was formed. Naturally, the USSR was denied membership since the NATO was created in reaction to the USSR.

However, if Russia were to request NATO membership right now, I don't think they would be denied. However, Russia has very little reason to do so, in part because it would give the USA more influence over its backyard, and because Russia's alliance with China and many former Soviet republics simply suffice just as well, if not better. Nevertheless, it is possible (I'm not saying it's a given) that Russia may align to the West in reaction to the increasing power of China.

However, if Russia were to request NATO membership right now, I don't think they would be denied.
Both Yeltsin and Putin made attempts to bond closer with NATO and both failed. The latest attempt was made after 9/11, when Russia closed its 2 military bases in Cuba and Vietnam, and American base in Kyrgyzstan appeared. Eventually it started to look like the West doesn't want to cooperate, treating us like equal partners. After these signals, Russia started switching its priorities in external affairs, a good indication of this was Putin's speech in Munich, 2007.

However, Russia has very little reason to do so, in part because it would give the USA more influence over its backyard, and because Russia's alliance with China and many former Soviet republics simply suffice just as well, if not better.
We don't have a military alliance with China yet. The only more or less real allies are Belorussia, Armenia and Kazakhstan, the rest of CSTO is more a burden than help.

Nevertheless, it is possible (I'm not saying it's a given) that Russia may align to the West in reaction to the increasing power of China.
If Russia voluntarily do this, it would be the craziest thing, which it has ever done in its history. In any possible confrontation between NATO and China, Russia must stay neutral. It's like if Canada joined military alliance against USA. Of course, Russia is in different weight class than Canada, but the comparison is still valid. The only possible reason why Russia would enter a military alliance against China in near future is if China undertakes some aggressive moves against Russia.

Both Yeltsin and Putin made attempts to bond closer with NATO and both failed. The latest attempt was made after 9/11, when Russia closed its 2 military bases in Cuba and Vietnam, and American base in Kyrgyzstan appeared. Eventually it started to look like the West doesn't want to cooperate, treating us like equal partners. After these signals, Russia started switching its priorities in external affairs, a good indication of this was Putin's speech in Munich, 2007.

I always thought even Yeltsin greeted the Eastern expansion of the NATO with some degree of hostility.

We don't have a military alliance with China yet. The only more or less real allies are Belorussia, Armenia and Kazakhstan, the rest of CSTO is more a burden than help.

True, but I didn't imply otherwise. Russia's alliance with China thru the SCO is mostly if not exclusively political.

If Russia voluntarily do this, it would be the craziest thing, which it has ever done in its history. In any possible confrontation between NATO and China, Russia must stay neutral. It's like if Canada joined military alliance against USA. Of course, Russia is in different weight class than Canada, but the comparison is still valid. The only possible reason why Russia would enter a military alliance against China in near future is if China undertakes some aggressive moves against Russia.

First of all, I didn't imply any military conflict between NATO and China (which is extremely unlikely in whatever case anyway) but rather a political and economic rivalry of which it is highly unlikely if not impossible to turn into a full scale war.

I always thought even Yeltsin greeted the Eastern expansion of the NATO with some degree of hostility.
That's right, any of Russian leaders, even the most pro-Western, would consider NATO eastern expansion as serious threat to Russian national security. There are only two possibilities to remove that threat completely: either disband NATO, or transform it into global world security organization, accepting Russia (and preferrably China too) into it.

First of all, I didn't imply any military conflict between NATO and China (which is extremely unlikely in whatever case anyway) but rather a political and economic rivalry of which it is highly unlikely if not impossible to turn into a full scale war.
The conflict looks unlikely now, but the situation may change in a matter of a few years. This is definitely not in Russia's interests to become a frontline in any NATO-China conflict, should it happen. Even not talking about military conflicts, we have to maintain good relations with China, for obvious reasons - and the West doesn't look particularly friendly now. As usual, by the way.