On Election Day 2008, two African-American men in black fatigues and berets stood outside a polling station in a predominantly black neighborhood of Philadelphia. They were members of the New Black Panther Party, which the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League have labeled a hate group. One of the men wielded a police-style nightstick, and there were complaints about voter intimidation. Police eventually escorted the armed man away without incident, but the outgoing Bush administration filed a civil suit against the party alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In May 2009, against the advice of prosecutors who had worked on the case, President Obama’s Justice Department dropped the suit, a move that caused barely a ripple in the press at the time. The case came back to life in July, though, when a former Justice Department lawyer testified before the Commission on Civil Rights that the case was dropped because the Justice Department did not want to protect the civil rights of white people.
Fox News began to air allegations of an anti-white bias at the Obama Justice Department. But almost no one else reported on the case—it was old, tenuous, and even a prominent conservative commenter called it “small potatoes.” One outlet that did pick up the story, however, was Russia Today, a fairly new and still mostly obscure English-language cable news channel funded by the Russian government.
Russia Today was conceived as a soft-power tool to improve Russia’s image abroad, to counter the anti-Russian bias the Kremlin saw in the Western media. Since its founding in 2005, however, the broadcast outlet has become better known as an extension of former President Vladimir Putin’s confrontational foreign policy. Too often the channel was provocative just for the sake of being provocative. It featured fringe-dwelling “experts,” like the Russian historian who predicted the imminent dissolution of the United States; broadcast bombastic speeches by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez; aired ads conflating Barack Obama with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; and ran out-of-nowhere reports on the homeless in America. Often, it seemed that Russia Today was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the façade of legitimate newsgathering.
So it was fairly unremarkable when Russia Today, in a July 8 segment called “Fox News stirring up racial fears in America,” interviewed the chairman of the New Black Panther Party, Dr. Malik Zulu Shabazz, who lambasted Republicans for playing on people’s fears in an effort to dominate the fall midterm elections.
But then Russia Today did something out of character. When Fox’s Glenn Beck attacked the segment, asking why Russian state-run TV was suddenly “in lock-step” with the Obama administration, Russia Today fired back in a way that was puzzling to anyone familiar with the channel. On July 9, Alyona Minkovski, who hosts a daily program called The Alyona Show, laid into Beck—“the doughboy nut job from Fox News”—with patriotic American fervor: “I get to ask all the questions that the American people want answered about their own country because I care about this country and I don’t work for a corporate-owned media organization,” she said, her voice rising.
Fox …you hate Americans. Glenn Beck, you hate Americans. Because you lie to them, you scare them, you try to warp their minds. You tell them that we’re becoming some socialist country…. You’re not on the side of America. And the fact that my channel is more honest with the American people is something you should be ashamed of.
Huh? Forget the Obama administration, since when does Russia Today defend the policies of any American president? Or the informational needs of the American public, for that matter? Like many of RT’s journalists, Minkovksi is a Russian immigrant, born in Moscow, raised and educated in the West, and hired by the network for her fluency in both English and Russian—she is someone who could be both Russia’s ambassador to the West as well as its Sherpa into the Western mind. But her tirade against Fox offers a glimpse into the mind of a changing Russia Today.

"It featured fringe-dwelling “experts,” like the Russian historian who predicted the imminent dissolution of the United States; broadcast bombastic speeches by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez; aired ads conflating Barack Obama with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; and ran out-of-nowhere reports on the homeless in America."
Hm, so how can I get myself a subscription to Russia today?
"Reports on the homeless in America"? How ridiculous! Don't they know, as Ms. Ioffe clearly does, that serious news channels tastefully ignore such issues?
But the most shocking development here is that this Russian news network conflates our friendly, wholesome Commander n' Chief Mr. Obama with the really scary and crazy Iranian president -- (oh wait, no they just failed to censor ads that did that.) Those wacky Russian propagandists, don't they know that Our Leader is good and just, and even if he makes mistakes he Means Well, while our Middle Eastern enemies are crazy and evil and in no way comparable at all. Just don't make good ol' Barry upset or he'll lock you in his island prison for the rest of your life, or kill everyone in your neighborhood with bombs dropped from flying robots.
Sorry CJR, but I couldn't continue reading this hackery. I'm sure there's some interesting stuff about Russia Today, but if you want a study in propaganda, look no further than Ms. Ioffe's drivel.
#1 Posted by LorenzoStDuBois, CJR on Tue 28 Sep 2010 at 06:14 AM
Julia,
I was really left rather mystified by this piece. I fail to see how what RT does (relatively non-hackish government-suppoting propaganda) is in any way distinguishable from the activity of Agence France Presse, Radio Free Liberty, the BBC, or any of the other Western government funded media outlets. And the less said about Fox News, the better.
Now, is RT a haven of sparkling professionalism, fearless truth-telling, and no-holds-barred reporting? No, I suppose it's not, but what outlets would you feel comfortable putting in that category? The standards of US television "journalism," if they still exist, are so uniformly reprehensible that it really takes a leap of faith to suggest that our media outlets are somehow categorically different from those ignorant fools laboring at RT.
I mean come on, have you actually watched Fox News (the US' most popular cable betwork) lately? Unless the RT people are running around naked with their hair on fire, they could hardly evidence less of a respect for truth, honesty, or the most basic precepts of journalism.
That RT is a government mouthpiece, and that its reports should be treated with skepticism, is a given. But governments have always had mouthpieces and they always will. Compared to Western countries, Russia is poor and ramshackle, and it's therefor not at all surprising that its pet media outlet is often not quite as flashy or presentable as RFE/RL, the BBC, etc.
#2 Posted by Mark Adomanis, CJR on Tue 28 Sep 2010 at 02:37 PM
How ironic that on the same day, CJR should describe FOX News, the de facto mouthpiece of a political party, as part of a great American tradition of opinionated media, and perhaps the wave of the future, while Russia Today, the de facto mouthpiece of a foreign political party, is labelled straight propaganda. Can you spell double standard?
This piece says as much about CJR's biases as it does about Russia Today. And these are revealed most clearly by the stories you consider wacky?
It's considered crazy for Russians to ask who is the greater nuclear threat, Obama or Ahmedinejad? Well, let's see, Obama controls thousands of nuclear warheads, Ahmedinejad controls none. Obama controls a military that has been steadily ringing Russia with bases, in fact actually accelerated that process after the end of the Cold War, and has numerous bases with nuclear weapons inside the former Soviet Union. Ahmedinejad has never threatened Russia and couldn't if he tried. So who is the greater nuclear threat to Russia? Wow, it's the guy with all the nuclear weapons, from the country with a formerly open and now unspoken policy of encircling Russia. Whodathunkit? Those crazy Russkies.
And they interviewed a fringe loon who "claims that the CIA is testing dangerous drugs on unwitting civilians." Where would anyone get such a crazy paranoid anti-American idea? Maybe he got it from the US Senate's Church Committee investigation, which found that the CIA had been testing dangerous drugs including LSD on thousands of unwitting civilians (Project MKULTRA). Just last year, the CIA agreed to pay damages to completely innocent CANADIAN psychiatric patients whom the CIA had secretly drugged with LSD in Canadian hospitals.
And what about GW Bush's dismal efforts to build stations that would counteract the fair journalism of al Jazeera? Did CJR run snooty pieces about the one Iraqis called the "cooking channel"? I never saw them. Did you pan Radio Free Europe?
What about the US government's habit of dropping bombs on al Jazeera stations? What about their habit of kidnapping and disappearing journalists like AP's Bilal Hussein? What about the incredibly, suspiciously high death toll of Iraqi journalists at the hands of US troops? Did CJR come out swinging for press freedom against their own big, bad government?
Isn't it ironic? You accuse Russia Today of being trapped into the role of spokesmen for the Kremlin's worldview. But you are trapped by your own all-American prism. American journalists inhabit a landscape where to imply that Americans can be as mean as foreigners is to engage in "moral equivalency". The starting point is to assume that Americans at least mean well, even the misguided ones. Foreigners are sneaky and duplicitous, their true intentions always malign.
The simple fact is wise people from less nationalistic countries would do well to steer clear of both Americans and Russians if they're looking for objective news coverage.
#3 Posted by OD, CJR on Tue 28 Sep 2010 at 07:45 PM
Very illuminating piece. It was obvious to me that RT is a propaganda outlet but I have some friends who treat RT as a legitimate news source. Hopefully, they will read this article and change their opinions, The Kremlin wouldn't spend millions of dollars just to educate foreigners. There is an ideological purpose behind RT's reports based on falsifications of reality/
#4 Posted by Tom Klemensky, CJR on Fri 1 Oct 2010 at 04:57 PM
Юля, смешно черт побери. Даже писать не охото про "российскую" оппозицию, RFE/RL, VOA, BBC, непредвзятость американских и британских СМИ, деятельность различных фондов и институтов. Все уже написали выше.
Вот думаю, это жутко прикольно приехать туда где есть несомненные преимущества перед остальными забугорными журналистами типа Леви, Швирца, Кэмпбела и пр., где можно вести романтическую борьбу с кровавым режимом, где можно описывать свою дрехлеющую малую родину как "банановая" республика слегка сопереживая её судьбе при этом ясно и четко осознавая что в любой момент можно удрать в Нью-Йорк.
#5 Posted by Alex, CJR on Tue 5 Oct 2010 at 11:26 AM
Julia,
RT has been designed for those who have no slightest idea of what Russia actually is; its audience consists of the narrow-minded outsiders with zero knowledge of both Russian politics and politicians.
In other words, you will never get comments "for" or "against" about RT from mature pragmatic people for whom RT is a naive approach to show nobody-knows-what to nobody-knows-whom.
#6 Posted by Alexander, CJR on Fri 8 Oct 2010 at 09:47 PM
Russia Today is so far over the top that it is comedy. I mean really. They are about as subtle with their propaganda as a shark in a funny hat. Their stories are utterly predictable. Everything the US does sucks, Russia does everything better and always has. Then the truther stories... I mean straight out of the tin-foil-hat convention. This thing is government sponsored? Really?
From their Youtube channel: "The channel is government-funded but shapes its editorial policy free from political and commercial influence." Oh lol! Listen to a few of their stories... They should claim "unencumbered by the thought process."
More from their Youtube channel: "We are set to show you how any story can be another story altogether." Yeah, when you make things up you can sure change the story...
"New 9/11 photos 'prove WTC exploded from inside'" Is one of their "stories."
We should call Russia Today "Fiction Today."
These guys are Kruschev, yelling "we will crush you." Amusing, and pathetic.
#7 Posted by Freeman Brook, CJR on Wed 13 Oct 2010 at 11:46 PM
So here is my question to those that just whine and moan about all media outlets. Why do you keep watching if you don't believe in the credibility of the station? Will some things get stretched? Yes, all of the networks have done it. What most of you that try to say one news agency is better than the other need to realize is this; you are most likely going to support the news organization that supports your political agenda. All the people that trash Fox News most likely watch CNN or MSNBC and vice versa. None of them are impartial. Quit moaning and bitching about who is right and who is wrong. If you don't like it then don't fucking watch it, plain and simple.
#8 Posted by Justus Smith, CJR on Thu 28 Oct 2010 at 06:07 AM
"...she is someone who could be both Russia’s ambassador to the West as well as its Sherpa into the Western mind. But her tirade against Fox offers a glimpse into the mind of a changing Russia Today."
What did you expect, really?
Not some sort of revolution in journalism to take place in Russia, such as would make it start to "bubble forth" pure and fresh waters of truth, all of a sudden? ...Or, perhaps, its being "sponsored by Russian government" must produce some miracles, you imagine? I might even cry, for I haven't found such faith even in Russia itself...
Besides, you can't be serious about US news style being radically different from that? Ah, forget about it for I want to be only positive.
So, things being as they are, I'll tell you how to cope with this trouble:
1) you just keep watching both Fox News and RT and the rest o'them;
given that you know pretty well "who is who" you can appreciate the individual style of each one o'them. Just like folks do in a theater.
2)try to learn the truth itself perfectly well (this is a MUST, for you can't rely on news media for that),
3)you can now have mu-u-u-ch fun seeing how this "truth" you already know gets interpreted in them news media and will at last be able to see through it all...
4)gradually, step by step, you'll come to know from what's being said that, which has NOT been said.
Here, this is it.
Follow through these 4 stages I roughly described above, and it won't take long before you find, that you don't need to complain any more about any such things.
Ah, almost forgot: if you want to see the truth, which other channels will never give you, then I'd recommend Al Jazeera.
#9 Posted by Kostya, CJR on Fri 29 Oct 2010 at 06:47 PM
Funniest thing about RT is the number of British reporters that have prostituted themselves out to spout Putin's apologetics for a price. Someone should do an investigative piece on who these folks are and what motivates them--that would be fascinating reading.
#10 Posted by Uncle_Putin, CJR on Wed 23 Feb 2011 at 11:31 PM
@LorenzoStDuBois: Better yet than looking at Ioffe's drivel as a study of propaganda is your drivel of a response. Conflating Obama and Ahmadinejad is legitimate, really? Please. When did Obama call for the Holocaust of Palestinians? When did he steal an election through mass murder?
@Mark Adomanis: Nice attempt at false equivalency. BBC, RFE and AGF are state-funded (Fox News is a corporation) but they don't tow a state-party line or political ideology, unlike RT. If you're going to make a compare RT with any other media organization, I'd suggest you take a look at their "news" (propaganda) coverage.
Also: what are the chances that Mark Adomanis posting here on CJR isn't also the same Mark Adomanis on this interview on Russia Today (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3T23HPqH-A)?
@OD: Yes where's the double standard of calling FoxNews the paragon of OPINIONATED MEDIA while calling Russia Today (which calls itself a legitimate news source) as state-funded propaganda?
Yeah I mean Obambi is such a nuclear threat, is that why he recently renewed the SALT treaty with the Russian president? Is that why he (like Ahmadinejad) is calling for a nuclear wipe-out of the Jewish- sorry- Muslim people?
"Foreigners are sneaky and duplicitous, their true intentions always malign." How many people immigrate to the US every year?
#11 Posted by ResponseFromHumanity, CJR on Fri 15 Apr 2011 at 06:35 PM
How dare you. Russia today is original and fresh ta def, son.
#12 Posted by Dmitry Medvedev, CJR on Sat 16 Apr 2011 at 04:11 PM
Interesting article. It confirms the suspicion I wrote about: "In conclusion, I have found Russia Today (RT) is not the mouthpiece of the Kremlin, but has anti-American sentiment...At every chance the hosts of RT and its affiliates can, they paint America in crisis or in distress...It makes America look like the evil “global policeman” who wants to terrorize the world. Supposedly, according to RT, the United States of America a police state, but it’s never mentioned that the Russian Federation is even more corrupt because of the overarching control of the wealthy in the country. As a concerned citizen, I recommend you do not watch RT unless you want to become anti-American yourself and want a perspective of the news that is not fair and balanced, but is unfair and discriminatory."
#13 Posted by Burkely Hermann, CJR on Sun 19 Jun 2011 at 09:57 PM
Chin up #13! There's more than enough media in which the USA is printed in a good light that the world is exposed to (starting with Hollywood movies) so why not allow for some alternative views shall we?
#14 Posted by Realist, CJR on Tue 19 Jul 2011 at 03:27 AM
I like such interviews. Usually the 'expert' is wrong, but also usually there is a grain of truth in what they say. RT features thought provoking interviews and stories about subjects the media in the US is afraid to take on in a non-biased way. Thanks Russia for some decent programming. I must take Russia related stories or those with an overt link to Russian interests with a grain of salt, but I will still watch RT to get another perspective before coming to my own conclusions even on those subjects.
#15 Posted by Ben Clark, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 11:44 AM
Of course Russia Today (boo! hiss!) is just a propaganda arm of the Evil Empire (the OTHER Evil Empire, that is) but I still enjoyed their coverage of the massive, months long anti corruption protests in Israel this past summer, while the first rate, totally unbiased "mainstream" media here in Oceania was doing everything they possibly could to pretend it wasn't happening.
Their coverage of the NATO invasion of Libya is quite eye-opening as well. If all I watched was the drivel coming out of the Ministry of Truth, I would probably think the forces of Big Brother were actually winning there.
#16 Posted by Bob Roberts, CJR on Wed 21 Sep 2011 at 07:56 AM
I visit RT to get the 'other' view. It is definitely anti-western and the comments more so. Still, it is good for a laugh. What I find annoying is the censorship of some of the comments I have submitted on the site. Not sure where the line is drawn. Just curious how they determine what is acceptable and what isn't. None of my comments ever contain profanities.
#17 Posted by Wet, CJR on Tue 27 Sep 2011 at 12:27 AM
No question that RT serves as an outlet for the Russian contemporary propaganda machine. Most of their stories are built around a grain of truth that is then spun in an anti-western/democratic way.
What most seem to fail to realize is that the channel is not only anti-US, but anti "west" in general (the EU, UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, India, Australia, Japan, et c).
As for Fox news, I don't think most Americans realize how their reporting appear to non-americans. Their reporting on domestic politics is appalingly biased and quite often plain untruthful. In addition, they have an aggressive streak to their reporting style that is very frightening to an outsider. There is a reason why the US's credit has been downgraded, and that reason is mainly the failure of the Republican party to adhere to democraticly sound conduct; and the fear that internal strife between the Rplcns and the Dcrts will lead to a stale mate in political dynamics. Such a stale mate would prevent needed economical reforms; and in the end leave the US extremely vulnerable in the current negative economic climate.
In other words, sure RT produces complete propaganda bs in international news; but there is a grave need for less biased reporting on US domestic matters - since the current political climate (amplified by biased media) endagers the economy not only of the (US) state but more importantly the checkbook of the average american.
#18 Posted by sigvurd, CJR on Tue 27 Dec 2011 at 03:24 PM
RT is to russia what the BBC is to Britain and despite it's pro Russia stance it also serves as a means for people to see what the mainstream wouldn't want you to see. I see an obvious need for it and while the mainstream media write pieces like this, it reminds me of why I need to watch both RT and the mainstream to get my information. No 1 channel is somehow better than the other because every channel I come across displays their bias. Including this news report. The one thing I like is that RT gives voice to activist movements because they want to shake things up. While this might seem "dangerous" or "fringe" to the mainstream who want to paint the pretty picture it, albeit unwittingly gives voice to the other side of arguments otherwise muted by the mainstream.
The public deserves to hear everything and there is a great upside to this, you can watch both mainstream media and channels like RT so that you end up with the bigger picture.
I'm glad I can see things objectively.
#19 Posted by steve, CJR on Tue 14 Feb 2012 at 01:57 PM
It's simple. RT is the best news network when it comes to an objective, correct perspective on the workings, intentions, history and actions of WESTERN POWER.
Of course RT is absolute trash at reporting about RUSSIA. But RUSSIA wields little POWER in the world compared to those its network CORRECTLY pokes.
#20 Posted by Conrad, CJR on Wed 15 Feb 2012 at 05:43 PM
Exactly Conrad...if you want the truth about the USA...watch RT America...if you want the truth about Russia, watch France24...if you want the truth about France, watch Deutsche Welle.....anyone who thinks CNN or any other American news outlet is not American propaganda is a fool.
BTW... Which USA news outlet DID NOT tow the government line in our run up and INVENTED rush to war with Iraq???...That's right...NONE.
#21 Posted by tony, CJR on Mon 20 Feb 2012 at 04:13 AM
I love RT. Best TV station atm. Greetings from Croatia!
#22 Posted by Ele_26, CJR on Tue 13 Mar 2012 at 07:31 AM
Good point there Conrad about RT.... The West has too much media power, why not give some to the other side!
#23 Posted by Realist, CJR on Sun 15 Apr 2012 at 01:36 PM
Conrad's comment is a treasure.
This is what the RT niche-market should be and this is what THEY should make the station's official slogan.Naturally , it would call for a more balanced/careful reporting, but nothing outside the reality.
#24 Posted by Alex, CJR on Fri 1 Jun 2012 at 10:29 PM
Exactly Conrad and Tony!
RT has excellent reporting about the US that US criminal elites would never allow but nothing worthwhile about Russia. Of course it has lots of disinformation that one has to be aware of. Nothing compared to the hammer of idiocy of the US propaganda machine though.
#25 Posted by mac, CJR on Sat 16 Jun 2012 at 09:37 PM
@mac I know this is well over a month old, but I just wanted to complement you on "the hammer of idiocy" comment. Made me laugh pretty hard. Well put.
#26 Posted by no, CJR on Thu 2 Aug 2012 at 07:45 PM
Yes, RT can be confusing and adolescently unsophisticated, yet unlike the sometimes thuggish new/old Pravda or the ever-so-smooth BBC, RT does (perhaps in spite of itself) present views that the Western media, because of its near religious devotion to Political Correctness, wouldn’t touch with a ten foot pole. RTs lack of sophistication and cosmopolitan slickness is, in these times of generically packaged “news,” quite refreshing.
#27 Posted by Charles G, CJR on Wed 8 Aug 2012 at 09:06 PM
Russia Today IS biased, misleading, uses words of video on you tube to draw you in.
They only talk of things going on in the west, with their anti western stance and their smirky smiling news casters who think they are " the shit". They don't tell you what is going on in Russia unless it is for their agenda.
They did not let anyone know about the priest that tried to stab a women a few weeks back. They do not tell you that Putin is now making jabs at his long time friend Dimitri Medvedev now. the friction has been growing. Some other Russian news out lets worry Putin is going to have Prime Minister Medvedev out here soon. They don't tell you a lot of things about Russia just the good things that make them look good while they spend time reporting every bad thing and also trying to impact our elections. Russia trying to inpact American elections while Putin removes UIAD and the NGOS because he is scared we are interering with HIS election. He runs RT like every other Russian media.
Any one who follows that channel is a easily being mislead. Yeah like they care about you. A lot. You are just tools to them. Have fun with that.
#28 Posted by Barrel of laughs, CJR on Mon 24 Sep 2012 at 08:52 PM
I'm Chinese, and I think that Russia Today is evil.
#29 Posted by Lao Jiang, CJR on Wed 14 Nov 2012 at 10:42 PM
Well, congrats.
Alyona is now on HuffPost Live, instead of interviewing people like Tom Drake and human rights scholars and various actual Afghan war veterans, she is interviewing Playboy Playmates and Tom Green. Not that she isn't good at it... but ....
Lauren Lyster, of Capital Account, is now working with Henry Blodgett. Oh, Columbia Journalism Review, have you ever, you know, read some of the books like "Blood on the Street" about where Henry Blodgett actually came from? Yes, put him up against RT and ... well. Hey. Blodgett works for Yahoo Finance though, and has a successfull US website. So he must be 100% legit?
Yes RT is propaganda-ish but so is Al Jazeera and even the grand old BBC. But I dont think Alyona Minkovski molested children like the BBC's Jimmy Saville did for decades on end while management coverd it up and did nothing.
And Al Jazeera? Let me know when they start covering slavery in Qatar.
Now I wonder about the 'free press' at places like MSNBC that get rid of Cenk Uygur because 'washington' doesnt like him... or the massively incestuous financial "journalism" business. CNBC has a show called "Mad Money" starring... a hedge fund manager. You don't call that Propaganda but RT is? Have you read "Trading with the Enemy", about Cramer's operational style? I am supposed to suspect the motives of Alyona Minkowski, but I should trust good ol' CNBC because its All American?
We don't need less voices, we need more. RT like many Russian Institutions was a contradiction. It was an outlet, within limits. You might call it 'anti american', just like people called Al Jazeera anti american. You might call it a 'foreign influence'. . . .uhm.
Who owns the stocks, and more importantly, bonds (i.e. the corporate debt) of the US networks parent corporations like GE and Comcast and so forth and so on?
Hint- its not only Americans.
#30 Posted by anonymous coward, CJR on Tue 26 Feb 2013 at 12:40 AM