Nice dig there, as if I'm the gatekeeper of knowledge in this country and just can't stand different perspectives.
The Russian government has every right to get its message out in English and defend its interests. Just about every other sovereign nation does the same thing, often in the guise of 'news organizations' as well. Nor do I begrudge people for following RT. That would be pretty hypocritical, since I follow them as well.
My beef isn't as much with RT itself as with all of the people on the left in the West who fail to appreciate (or even see) the agenda behind it. The point of RT is to promote the interests of the Russian government, which is a highly illiberal authoritarian regime. That is certainly not the kind of government most progressives would want to support. The problem is, objective news reporting isn't always going to promote those interests, so RT is highly selective in what they report and in the way they report it. The results often distort reality or leave important things out altogether. And there's the related issue of press freedom in Russia itself, which international monitoring organizations almost always rate as poor.
RT directly appeals to the Western left because those are the people they have deemed useful in their mission of reducing American power and influence and increasing those of Russia. This is for two main reasons. Progressives are generally against a muscular American FP in the first place and American progressives are of course part of American society and thus are in a position to influence public opinion and policy makers through voting, disseminating information, and lobbying. That's RT's aim. Appeal to the left with language and perspectives that they are agreeable to and shift and shape opinions that way. The more people there are here condemning US foreign policy, the more likely it is for that foreign policy to change directions. And any reduction of the US footprint (particularly in areas Russia deems vital to its interests) represents an opening for Russian influence to expand into.
The US does the same thing of course. A lot of other nations do. But it's ridiculous to call this type of thing 'news.' That was the point of my OP. The job of the journalist (including headline writers) is to provide information that is useful and tells the reader what they need to know about an event. A proper header for the NH primary story would be something like 'Romney wins NH Primary, Paul second' . . . not some quote about how awesome Ron Paul thinks he is (accompanied by art with Ron Paul looking all majestic).
Like I said in the OP, I understand completely why the Russian government wants Ron Paul to be president. Were I a member of that government, I probably would too. But threading that message into news coverage requires violating the most basic tents of objectivity.
And one last thing. I think it's just plain ridiculous to argue that RT frequently asks 'hard questions' to their guests. Just look around at the RT clips that get posted here. Most present only one guest whose perspective and opinions are invariably anti-American (and an amazingly high percentage of the time, research on those guests shows them to be Truthers/Conspiracy Theorists). You rarely see any effort whatsoever to get more than one perspective on a story.
'Question More' indeed 
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
