The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
About removing the tag propaganda on the 'type' tag of the article[edit]
I think that the propaganda attribute should be removed, this is not useful, misleading and moreover: every newspaper/tv channel has its editorial line, so this tag should be on every newspaper/tv channel page on Wikipedia then.. Everything (nations, newspapers etc..) has its ideology and its objectives, with which we can agree or disagree. Even if a source give fake news, we (with we I mean Wikipedia) can't tel that's fake news; we must say "this person said this" (with source link) "and this other person said it is fake news because.." (with source link). SO putting the propaganda tag is equivalent to taking a position, in my opinion. For controversial manners there's a special section (in this case called "Propaganda claims and related issues"). Let's stay neutral. Remember that a 6 could be a 9 if you look at it upside down.
User:FinixFighter 3 March 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple reliable sources calling RT a propaganda outlet.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Newslinger and @Ymblanter these "reliable sources" are themselves unreliable and unsourced (editorial commentary and blog posts, not in any way demonstrating via a neutral fact-based or sourced viewpoint how the Russian government controls the editorial content of RT - which would be the requirement to meet the definition of "propaganda"). "State media" is one thing (as it is tax-funded) but "propaganda" is another thing entirely and the tag introduces bias into this article and should be removed. Asaturn (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion. The policies say otherwise.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is so hard to find a neutral POV and wade through all the BS on Wikipedia. BBC or The Washington Post seem to slant the news in favour of their respective countries yet aren't classified as propaganda. Then you have an editor with a large Ukrainian flag on their talk page which highlights their own bias in trying to paint RT as propaganda. As an average reader of Wikipedia it would be good if someone could come along and mediate all of this bias so we can have a balanced viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.189.217 (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. The article itself shouldn't categorize this network as propaganda or not, but instead, should only report what others categorize it as. A lot of reliable sources also state that Fox News is Trump propaganda, yet you do not see it categorized as propaganda in its article. Eden5 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the 30 sources from 2019 and earlier, listed above, and the high-quality academic sources in Special:Permalink/1077975588#cite_note-propaganda-2. If you have the reliable sourcing to establish that Fox News is a propaganda outlet, feel free to present that information on Talk:Fox News. Either way, what the Fox News article contains is not relevant to this article. — Newslingertalk 06:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, is that RT is a propaganda outlet. There is no such consensus for the BBC or The Washington Post. Also, editors of all political orientations are allowed to edit Wikipedia, as long as they follow the policies and guidelines. — Newslingertalk 06:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you've established that "The overwhelming consensus of reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, is that RT is a propaganda outlet." Did you use an objective method to review all the academic literature, such as a key word search in major periodical indexes? Or did you just do a Google or other search and cherry-pick the academic articles that supported your position? Are there any academic articles that conclude, as many of us do, that the term "propaganda" is too subjective for such a judgment? --Nbauman (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At his point it is irrelevant. There is a community consensus that RT is a propaganda outlet. May be all of us are stupid idiots, RT is a highly reliable academic source, and we all fail to recognize this fact. But to challenge this consensus, you would have to open a new RfC.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use rhetorical or hyperbolic language. It makes it rational discussion difficult. (1) I don't see any RfC with the conclusion that there is a consensus that RT is propaganda. All I could find was a contentious discussion with editors arguing on both sides and no resolution. Could you please link to the exact statement in the RfC that there is a consensus? (2) You are claiming that there is a consensus in high-quality academic sources that RT is propaganda. What is your evidence for that claim? --Nbauman (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically sorting out text so that evaluations of RT go in to the right sections (Programming, guests, content) that are currently scattered around. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does the first sentence in the lede, "a Russian state-controlled propagandist international television network" go against WP:NPOV? Should the article take sides and categorize it as "propaganda" or only report what news outlets categorize it as? Eden5 (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed propagandist from the first sentence in Special:Diff/1077979219, returning to the longstanding article version. That word was added very recently (Special:Diff/1077838994), and I had missed it in your edit (Special:Diff/1077975365).However, the propaganda descriptor is exceptionally well-sourced and the article should be amended to explicitly describe RT as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice. Since the 2019 RfC at Talk:RT (TV network)/Archive 11 § RfC: Propaganda, many additional academic sources have been added that explicitly describe RT as a source of propaganda. There are currently 6 peer-reviewed academic sources cited for the propaganda descriptor (citations). Different facets of RT's propaganda have also been examined in detail, with 8 peer-reviewed academic sources describing RT's propagation of disinformation (citations), and 4 peer-reviewed academic sources describing RT's propagation of conspiracy theories (citations) – some of which are also in the preceding groups. Adding reliable non-opinion news sources raises the number of citations to over 30, with an incomplete list from 2019 at #About removing the tag propaganda on the 'type' tag of the article.According to WP:NPOV, neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Reliable sources uniformly agree that RT is a propaganda outlet, and this article should reflect that in Wikipedia's voice. — Newslingertalk 06:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think "propaganda" is too subjective and too dependent on the editor's political views.
Many WP:RSs call Fox News "propaganda". Fox News controversies Should we "explicitly describe Fox News as propaganda in Wikipedia's voice"?
If for example the President of the U.S. referred to RT as "propaganda," we would have lots of Wikipedia-defined WP:RSs referring to RT as propaganda. You could replace "RT" with anything. --Nbauman (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News has nothing to do with this discussion. Renat 00:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're not a big fan of using whataboutism, yet you drag in what is likely the most contentious article in a long-term contentious topic area currently under Arbcom discretionary sanctions with a contentious Rfc going on now with reams of ink and walls of reliable sources on both side of the question filling multiple Rfc subpages to contain them—arguably the most contentious article on Wikipedia right now. Mathglot (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing requirements for "have published propaganda" and starting off the article with "RT ... is a propagandist television network" should absolutely be different, should they not? I see your comment above made no distinction. For instance, it would be silly to argue that Voice of America has never published propaganda, but slapping the "propagandist" label on the first sentence of the lead of their article would be ridiculous. (Though, yes, there is a difference in degree here so RT's article should discuss their propaganda more prominently than VoA's) Endwise (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voice of America has nothing to do with this discussion. Renat 00:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you're saying. Examples and analogies can go along way in discussions like these and can be quite explicative. If you've argued (not saying Newslinger necessarily did) that sourcing which allows us to write that an organisation has published propaganda is sourcing which allows us to describe them as a "propagandist" organisation in the lead, then I could either attack that idea directly, or offer up a counter example which (if you agree with it) would mean the argument doesn't hold.
For an abstract example (see!), if we were discussing apples, and you said apples are yellow because we know that fruits are yellow, I could either try and argue directly that apples are actually green/red, or I could instead offer up a counter example which attacks your reasoning -- e.g., "but fruits aren't always yellow, for example, cherries are red!" If you were to then respond with "cherries have nothing to do with this discussion, we are discussing apples", I would assume you are either being dishonest or don't understand what we're talking about. Endwise (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, I can write, I don't know: "Wikipedia is biased" on Google, and these "credible sources" will say that Wikipedia, is in fact biased. But we aren't going to get up and arms about it because they say that! This is something else, this is because people have western bias and think that RT is against their political view, its propaganda and they are wrong. Also, the Russian Wikipedia doesn't say that its propaganda. it just says that: "A number of politicians, media and media specialists characterize RT as a propaganda channel..." I think the reason for this is because the people writing this, are most likely Russian, and aren't western sympathizers so they aren't directly saying its propaganda. This is further proof that it only says that RT is propaganda on the site because of biasism. 2607:FEA8:B060:248:C00E:CF98:237C:84A4 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I don't support using the propagandist descriptor in the first sentence, which was added in Special:Diff/1077838994 before it was removed. I am primarily responding to the second question in the RfC statement. — Newslingertalk 11:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support removing the word "propagandist" from the first sentence. Many sources have described RT as "propaganda", and the article should show who says that and why. We wouldn't put "liar", "stupid," or "ugly" into the first sentence of an article, and for exactly the same reasons we shouldn't put "propagandist" there. I don't oppose calling it "propaganda" in Wikipedia's voice; [[:Category:Russian propaganda organizations]] does that. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support question 1 and 2 The lead in an article generally shouldn't have loaded language, especially such as "propagandist," without attribution. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:4CAE:9DE2:30BC:86D9 (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also support removing the word "propagandist" from the first sentence. It's inclusion, though a reflection of truth, is also redundant in its use. It can already be safely assumed that by virtue of being a "state-controlled" media outlet that some amount of propaganda is being peddled.Writethisway (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "propagandist" label: state-controlled news orgs often pump out propaganda, and RT is no exception, but slapping the label "propagandist" on them is silly and not something reliable sources tend to do either. It is far, far better to explain why people consider them to put out propaganda, as is done in the lead now in the third paragraph, rather than just slap a snarky and denigrating label on them. Endwise (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing "propagandist" from the first sentence. Many sources have described RT as "propaganda", and the article should show who says that and why., per HouseOfChange. This is better achieved by giving a fuller account later in the lead, rather than shoving the crude 'label' into sentence one. Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove We need to avoid misleading readers by using descriptions that can be misinterpreted. RT is seen by some as part of a propaganda effort because it includes commentators that formerly worked for U.S. media and cover topics including foreign affairs and social issues that may make the U.S. appear in a bad light. For example, by covering the Black Lives Matter protests, they drew attention to Americans that the country had racial issues, which would undermine their confidence in their government. Without this explanation, readers might think that RT invented the protests. This should of course be explained in the text. TFD (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove since most media have some kind of agenda. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove word and label per above and WP:VOICE "Present opinions in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize." Eden5 (talk) 06:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it necessarily goes against WP:NPOV regardless of whether it has attribution or not, but as per the above comments I think it should be removed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, because Russian state controlled already implies propagandist. It is egging on the obvious.--Seggallion (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove The claim against RT was that it served a propaganda objective by giving coverage to views that were critical of the U.S., such as former talk show hosts on mainstream U.S. media. So for example covering racism in America serves a propaganda purpose because it makes the U.S. look bad. But that does not mean the presenters' intentions are to do that or that their claims are false or exaggerated. Larry King for example was perhaps the most respected anchor in America and joined RT because it allowed him editorial independence. TFD (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: In case you're interested, the "claim against RT" is not simply that it "served a propaganda objective by giving coverage to views that were critical of the U.S." The "claim" against RT is the same as the claim against all public and private broadcast media in Russia - with the previous exception of TV Dozhd, which, in the wake of the "special military operation" in Ukraine, was forced to close - is that it functions as an extension of the Kremlin. Anti-American (And you are lynching Negroes) content is only one part of RT's output, albeit the largest and most important feature of its output. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 08:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A search for the word "propaganda" in Völkischer Beobachter has 9 hits, Der Stürmer has 13 and RT (TV network) has 94. That to me shows that the article is trying to persuade readers rather than inform, which incidentally is the definition of propaganda.
I notice too that no editors have presented sources in this discussion. Most of the discussion I have read is about what talk show hosts and their guests said. But then that should be compared with CNN, which had Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs and Piers Morgan.
It is more important to explain what RT does than to add another mention of the word propaganda to the article.
@The Four Deuces:"A search for the word "propaganda" in Völkischer Beobachter has 9 hits, Der Stürmer has 13 and RT (TV network) has 94. That to me shows that the article is trying to persuade readers rather than inform, which incidentally is the definition of propaganda." Wow. That's one for the ages. *head in hands*. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm is unconstructive. If you have a point to make, you should explain it. TFD (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not for first line - that phrasing of a summary judgement is contrary to WP:VOICE. I think starting an article with use of such a WP:LABEL just comes across as showing the article is heavily biased. There is notable amounts of such concern, so the article body should mention such comments in WP:IMPARTIAL manner and WP:DUE weight, perhaps even into a lower section of the WP:LEAD, but not in the first line. Try to follow MOS:LEAD. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Remove (Summoned by bot) – primarily per MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which says: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." It doesn't say anything about including critical evaluations in the first sentence; in fact, the guideline goes on to say: "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Given that the word propaganda is a contentious label, that seems all the more reason to keep it out of the lead sentence. I'm pretty sure that close to 100% of reliable sources would agree that RT is a "Russian state-controlled international television network funded by the Russian government", which is a factual, non-judgmental sentence, and that should be plenty for the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE. Judgments (necessarily objective, even when uniform) about its propagandistic nature can be left for the remainder of the lead. Mathglot (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Langdon, Kate C.; Tismaneanu, Vladimir (9 July 2019). "Russian Foreign Policy: Freedom for Whom, to Do What?". Putin's Totalitarian Democracy: Ideology, Myth, and Violence in the Twenty-First Century. Springer International. pp. 189–224. ISBN978-3-030-20579-9. Retrieved 21 March 2021 – via Google Books. Soviet-born British journalist Peter Pomerantsev documented the typical newsroom antics in one of Russia's largest propaganda outlets, RT News (formerly known as Russia Today). When his acquaintance composed a piece that referenced the Soviet Union’s occupation of Estonia in 1945, the writer was chewed out by his boss, who maintained the belief that Russians saved Estonia. Any other descriptions of the events of 1945 were unacceptable assaults on Russia's integrity, apparently, so the boss demanded that he amend his text.
Reire, Gunda (2015). "Euro-Atlantic values and Russia's propaganda in the Euro-Atlantic space"(PDF). Rocznik Instytutu Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej. 13 (4). Retrieved 21 March 2021 – via Center for International Studies. Nowadays, Russia attacks the Western value of rationality and uses the argument of "the second opinion" or plurality of opinions. The phrase "the second opinion" has even become the slogan of RT. For instance, this propaganda channel used the public opinion's contention as to the nature of the Iraq war, to sell itself as an impartial, objective media outlet in the USA. Overall, Russian propaganda involves a clash of political systems, which is more dangerous than the old-school Soviet propaganda.
Ižak, Štefan (January 2019). "(Ab)using the topic of migration by pro-Kremlin propaganda: Case study of Slovakia"(PDF). Journal of Comparative Politics. University of Economics in Bratislava / University of Ljubljana / Alma Mater Europaea. 12 (1): 58. ISSN1338-1385. Retrieved 28 February 2022. Almost all important media in Russia are state controlled and used to feed Russian audience with Kremlin propaganda. For international propaganda Kremlin uses agencies like RT and Sputnik. Both are available in many language variations and in many countries (Hansen 2017). Aim of this propaganda is to exploit weak spots and controversial topics (in our case migration to the EU) and use them to harm integrity of the West (Pomerantsev and Weiss 2014).
Oates, Sarah; Steiner, Sean (17 December 2018). "Projecting Power: Understanding Russian Strategic Narrative". Russia's Public Foreign Policy Narratives(PDF). Russian Analytical Digest. 229. Vol. 17. University of Bremen: Research Centre for East European Studies. pp. 2–5. doi:10.3929/ethz-b-000311091. Retrieved 21 March 2021 – via ETH Zurich. The analysis of Russian strategic narrative allows us to understand more clearly the logic in Russian propaganda found on English-language outlets such as RT and more effectively deter Russian information aggression.
Page 2: "Russian propaganda, specifically RT, is carefully targeted to different audiences and has nuanced messaging designed to undermine the West on the basis of its own criteria, build credibility by covering less-heard voices in regional news, and using human interest program (click-bait) to draw in viewers."
Ajir, Media; Vailliant, Bethany (Fall 2018). "Russian Information Warfare: Implications for Deterrence Theory". Strategic Studies Quarterly. 12 (3): 70–89. ISSN1936-1815. JSTOR26481910. Retrieved 21 March 2021. The real-world repercussions of these objectives are identified through several forms of attack. The first is through disseminating official Russian state propaganda abroad via foreign language news channels as well as Western media. Most notable is the creation of the very successful government-financed international TV news channel, Russia Today (RT).
Most of those statements come down to the lynching analogy. So for example, RT hired Ed Schultz after he was fired from MSNBC when they decided to reorient the network to the center. While it served the interests of the Kremlin to provide a platform for people critical of U.S. government policies, it didn't necessarily mean that those hosts were reading material written by the Kremlin. Larry King for example said that all his shows were prepared by his staff. I don't think he thought he was undermining Western civilization. I think it is better to explain how RT fulfils a propaganda function, rather than repeat the term propaganda 94 times without any explanation. Your sources in fact explain why RT fulfils a propaganda function. They don't just say "It's propaganda!" TFD (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing and citation: not checked
.svg){kind=small}
