[–] AOU 1 point (+1|-0)

Their parents might recognize them.

[–] COFfer 0 point (+0|-0)

RT is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government. News outlet RT has registered as an agent of a foreign government in America, after years of accusations that it was a propaganda arm of the Russian government. An unclassified version of a January US intelligence report points to RT and Russian-backed website Sputnik as a key part of Russian interference with the US election, arguing the outlet served "as a platform for Kremlin messaging".


And more sources

[–] notme 1 point (+1|-0) Edited

I am aware. All media, regardless of origin, are propaganda, in my opinion. However, easy enough to fact check whether the Berkeley PD did or did not arrest and publish the data. Berkeley PD Log Arrests

So, I'm not sure what to infer from your response.

Edit: Link title

[–] COFfer 0 point (+0|-0)

First let me say I agree that all media must be scrutinized and verified as much as possible. Since information has been distributed from the dawn of man, it has been used at times to influence as much, if not more, than just transferring facts.

Now as to my comment. It had nothing to do with the subject of the article, but the source. The discussion of US media is well known, and facts and rumours about them persist. I was bringing to the forebear information about RT as it may not be as well known who and what they are. I believe the old adage "Consider the source" is important. Many people, including myself, have gotten to the point where the source of any info is discarded due to past examples of outright deceit. That's intellectually lazy, but understandable.

But let's not forget that, intended or not, effective propaganda doesn't have easily disputable "facts" as their focus, but rely on inferred credibility. It involves taking a documentable occurrence and presenting it with an opinion, or spin, advantageous for the originators purposes. In the case of RT, their interests are foremost those of the Russian Govt. As I indicated, effective propaganda won't always openly and easily present info that can be disputed. In fact it's my belief a good propagandist will publish info that is totally accurate at times to develop trust in an audience so further articles are taken at face value.

To conclude, I wasn't attacking you or stating that, at least, some of the facts in the article were false, or what the intent of publishing it was. My only intent was to present information on the source of that info. It's up to all of us to use whatever data is presented and form our own opinions.

[–] AOU 1 point (+1|-0)

Russian interference with the US election

There's 0 evidence of collusion and BBC is a well known fake news propaganda television network.

[–] COFfer 0 point (+0|-0)

It says "interference", not collusion. That quote is from US Intelligence agencies (that's a whole other can of worms) and even at that collusion is not a crime. There is evidence that Hilliary met with Russians in Russia, paid for derogatory info on Pres Trump (still not a crime), sold 20% of US uranium interests to a Russian business/govt, and the suspicious $500k speech Bill gave in Russia. It is widely believed that Russia did "participate" in trying to persuade the US public's opinions of candidates. Of course, so did most US MSM.

As for the BBC, I included many other sources which state the same info. A recently released analysis ranks BBC as one of the most trusted news sources in the US. Sorry, that site is subscriber blocked but you can still see the first few paragraphs. Here's the text from it:

The BBC is the most trusted TV news brand, followed closely by Fox News and PBS, according to an analysis created for Research Intelligencer by Brand Keys.
The analysis, which draws from the 2018 “Customer Loyalty and Engagement Index,” examines 1,287 brands across 150 categories to determine how much “trust” contributed to each brand’s engagement and market success.
For the TV brands analyzed here, 4,012 viewers rated broadcast and cable brands that they watch regularly (3+ times per week) to determine how much trust those brands engendered.
As President Trump has assailed news (of all varieties) as “Fake News,” and more recently, “the enemy of the people,” Brand Keys was interested to see how much “trust” viewers actually had in the President, versus the TVs brands.
President Trump was rated with an overall 29%, less than a third of that attributed to the BBC, and half that of local news broadcaster and avowed Trump supporter, Sinclair Broadcast Group.
Examined by political affiliation, Democrats rated Mr. Trump 14%, Independents 22%, and Republicans 35%. Eighteen percent (18%) of the sample had “No Opinion.”
The next wave of the Brand Keys Media Trust Tracker will measure newspapers.
Robert Passikoff is founder and president of Brand Keys Inc.

OK, I know it's another unverified media company which only leads us in circles ad infinitum. But that's the point. People will believe who they want to believe. You stated

BBC is a well known fake news propaganda television network

but didn't cite any sources for that statement. I've tried to not state my own opinions, but have provided sources for investigation by others. However, I will state this one. Although Britain has lately become quite questionable where their interests lie, they and the US have an extensive history and are still considered allies. I don't believe Russia, or the USSR, have ever been known as that. So when it comes to earning my trust or reliance, I will give that to the BBC long before anything the Russian Govt. has to say.