RT may be a propaganda outlet, but so is pretty much everything else bigger than Joe Rando's blog. Better to use those that you know and can correct for the bias of than being led by those with unknown motivations who keep their backers hidden. Can you honestly hold RT as "worse" than outlets like the New York Times that also uncritically function as establishment mouthpieces?
Other commenters here want to downplay RT's egregious propaganda, comparing it to the equivalent of other sources. But while I think many mainstream sources: NYT, WSJ, Al Jazeera, BBC, etc. have slants and glaring issues, all pale in comparison to the extreme level of RT.
Just yesterday they had an article from a Charlottesburg "Unite the Right" speaker lamenting why couldn't Americans overthrow their government like the Afghans did[0].
Journalists in Russia that don't unequivocally tout the Russian government narrative run the risk of jail or death.[1]
Every single article has blatant unidirectional spin: "US bad, Russia good."
None are on this level. Any sort of trying to obtain pieces of valuable info from it are infected.
> Just yesterday they had an article from a Charlottesburg "Unite the Right" speaker lamenting why couldn't Americans overthrow their government like the Afghans did[0].
How is that any different than all the Navalny stuff being run in American and EU outlets? Cold War is Cold War, objectivity cannot be expected in any reporting, regardless of where it comes from.
> Journalists in Russia that don't unequivocally tout the Russian government narrative run the risk of jail or death.[1]
Assange is being persecuted for journalism by the US - are journalists here really more free to speak the truth? Is our media really any less beholden to the political establishment?
Sorry, but I don't see anything to disqualify RT as a news source, as long as it is taken with the appropriate salt (and of course, news should always be gathered from many diverse sources).
> Every news source has a bias, you just have to acknowledge it.
I'd go further, and say that all corporate news is literally propaganda. It's not done by lying; it's a question of what you include and what you omit, and how you juxtapose unrelated stories. So I read the Guardian online, and I watch BBC main evening news, but I can't help questioning everything I see or read to work out what the angle is. It feels a bit like I imagine OCD must feel.
El Reg is good for a lighthearted approach to tech news.
You can't get fair coverage of the Middle East from the mainstream, AFAICS. Jonathan Cook is good.
On Scottish politics, Craig Murray was superb, until they locked him up.
I'm a leftie, but for British politics I like Peter Oborne and Peter Hitchens from the Daily Mail, a right-wing red-top.
I like Media Lens. They've not been publishing a lot lately, and their aim is unwavering: their entire purpose is exposing bias and propaganda in the british media, especially the BBC and The Guardian. So it can seem rather repetitive. But their articles are effectively closely-argued critiques of the mainstream coverage of important events, so it forms a kind of press-review. They write long-form, thoughtful articles.
I voted-up the question, because to tell the truth, I would also like to know where I can read daily general reporting, in English, that doesn't have a hidden agenda. I'm consuming less and less news recently. It makes me bilious.
[0] https://www.euronews.com [1] https://www.politico.eu [2] https://www.rt.com