# RT Channel 280



## karrank% (Sep 20, 2009)

Is this some russian news/tourism channel? When did this happen?


----------



## [email protected] Network (Jan 6, 2011)

karrank% said:


> Is this some russian news/tourism channel? When did this happen?


This happened today. Russia Today (RT) has been added the International Basic Pack, Russian: Mega Pack, DishLATINO Max, and AT120 and above at no additional cost to customers


----------



## karrank% (Sep 20, 2009)

Interesting, thanks.


----------



## karrank% (Sep 20, 2009)

While you're at it, how about an Indonesia news channel?


----------



## [email protected] Network (Jan 6, 2011)

karrank% said:


> While you're at it, how about an Indonesia news channel?


I'll put in a request for you. Any specific one?


----------



## karrank% (Sep 20, 2009)

Wow, there's more than one? An english-language one, if available, thanks.


----------



## [email protected] Network (Jan 6, 2011)

karrank% said:


> Wow, there's more than one? An english-language one, if available, thanks.


I imagine there's more than one, but don't know of any off-hand, but I did put in a request for you


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

How about a Canadian station? It would not take much to make CBC acceptable for U.S. distribution (i.e. removing the few programs that are already carried by a U.S. network). They get all our major nets plus many of our programs are carried on their nets.

When I first got cable back in the mid 80's we got a Canadian station since we are on the border (well sort of, Canada is 60 miles to the north with Lake Erie between us).


----------



## nmetro (Jul 11, 2006)

Michael P said:


> How about a Canadian station? It would not take much to make CBC acceptable for U.S. distribution (i.e. removing the few programs that are already carried by a U.S. network). They get all our major nets plus many of our programs are carried on their nets.
> 
> When I first got cable back in the mid 80's we got a Canadian station since we are on the border (well sort of, Canada is 60 miles to the north with Lake Erie between us).


Blame Congress, the FCC and NAB for why Canadian TV stations cannot be carried by satellite in the United States. I have no idea how cable TV in Detroit, Seattle and Buffalo still can carry Canadian stations. Though, Canada, allows US Networks to be carried on satellite and Cable in Canada. While yes, CBS, CTV, and Global have their Canadian based programming, adverisers from the US routinely air ads on Canadian stations, thus causing competition for advertising dollars. Also, the US TV stations in Seattle, Detroit and Buffalo, NY do not want to lose revenue to their Canadian counterparts across the border.

The bottom line, as with everything else in this country with government, its the money. NAB pays a lot of people in Congress.


----------



## Chihuahua (Sep 8, 2007)

[email protected] Network said:


> I imagine there's more than one, but don't know of any off-hand, but I did put in a request for you


Perhaps Euronews (in English) and BBC World News (and maybe Britain's Sky News as well) as well as Al Jazeera English.


----------



## [email protected] Network (Jan 6, 2011)

I did put all of your requests in


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

Chihuahua said:


> Perhaps Euronews (in English) and BBC World News (and maybe Britain's Sky News as well) as well as Al Jazeera English.


Several years Al Jazeera English was supposed to be added, but there there was a flurry of angry "I'll drop Dish" messages posted here.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Let me get this straight....you are KIDDING me!

We've got bloody RT which does NOTHING but slam the US and praise Putin 24/7, but Al Jazeera English was short-circuited by a few ... uninformed people?

OK, before I get into a shouting match here I simply want to challenge anyone who wants to slam me on AJE.

First, go to: http://rt.com/on-air/ Watch it for an hour and count the anti-US references you see and hear, the stories that tell of all the problems in America.

Then, go to: http://www.aljazeera.com/watch_now/ and do the same.

Then come back here and let's discuss.

BTW, as I was typing this I switched on RT, just to make sure it was what I remembered. Within 30 seconds I had been told how Newt Gingrich or Romney as President would curtail American civil liberties and the crawl at the bottom of the screen chided the US for "interfering" with its comments about the Russian election.

I want to know who is paying Dish to pick up this channel. Look, I know what Charlie's politics are...I can't help but wonder if he knows he's broadcasting this...stuff?

As a child, I would lie in bed at night and listen to Radio Moscow, along with many other shortwave stations. Even at the age of 12 I could discern the difference between propaganda and honestly reported news. Today's RT doesn't push the glories of Marxism as did the old Radio Moscow...but it is considerably more sophisticated in the ways it seeks to trash our country and its interests abroad.

Sorry for the rant, folks. This just pissed me off (as I guess you can tell).


----------



## quizzer (Aug 29, 2006)

Chihuahua said:


> Perhaps Euronews (in English) and BBC World News (and maybe Britain's Sky News as well) as well as Al Jazeera English.


BBC World
CNN International


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

quizzer said:


> BBC World
> CNN International


I don't think CNNI is a possibility as IIRC they won't sell it domestically. But BBC World is out there for the asking (and paying for).

....along with Al Jazeera English. reach:


----------



## Orion9 (Jan 31, 2011)

It seems to me that the Middle East has replaced Russia as the favorite boogieman on US TV. China seems to be an up and comer in this regard too.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

mnassour, I kid you not. The uproar over AlJaz was so bad the thread was locked and then removed. I'm just as upset as you are over the situation. If somebody did not want to watch it, don't. Just don't block it for the rest of us. We do still have freedom of speech here (last time I've checked). We should be able to get every foreign English language service available! Having those channels would differentiate satellite service over cable.


----------



## jamelar (Dec 30, 2010)

Second on BBC World and CNN International request (BBC World a strong 1st over CNNI)

"I don't think CNNI is a possibility as IIRC they won't sell it domestically."
Actually U-Verse and some US Cable systems carry it.

I just noticed the RT addition last night. Actually I've been receiving RT and Aljazzera English for some time now on an FTA satellite. I am REALLY hoping BBC World will be added sometime soon. I'm betting RT is paying Dish to carry their signal where BBC World requires payment from Dish.

As to the those who don't like the some view points of foreign news channels:
1) Read the first amendment, should that really only apply to the US?
2) You don't have to watch the channel.
3) The Voice of America is a US Gov't sponsored radio and television service broadcast to the rest of the world in various languages. Should that be shut down?
4) There are those of us who want to see other points of view besides what the US media determines to be news, and can decide for ourselves what is news and what is BS.
I could go on, but I think I've hit the main points.

So I do applaud Dish Network's decision to air Russia Today. I really would like to see BBC World added.


----------



## schmack (Sep 10, 2005)

Michael P said:


> The uproar over AlJaz was so bad the thread was locked and then removed.


Why is everyone okay with this type of blatant censorship online? I coded my first BBS (online forum software) back in 1982 and all my life I have seen rampant censorship online. I thought this was ameerika?


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

Censorship is when the government disallows free speech.
Moderation is when a forum thread gets out of hand and locked.

If'n you don't like it, go make your own forum, with blackjack, and hookers.

...you know what, forget the forum and the blackjack...


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

I think it is a misrepresentation to now have people look at Al Jezeera and ask how could it be protested comparing it to RT. 
At that time it was a very VERY different Al Jezeera. I won't go into politics with specifics, but they actually targeted in a "documentary" a certain group of people as being the reason we had 911. This as a "news" organization.

Even at that, I do not like censorship, and we need to see this stuff so we can understand how others are thinking. Just remember though, Dish or anyone does not have to carry a news channel it does not want to. You don't have to subscribe to any provider you don't want to. It is not censorship if the provider does not want to carry a news channel even if it's because of politics.

Today, Al Jezeera has changed, and in obvious ways. They went after and got some credible news people, and certainly have become more of a news organization than propagandists. And to be fair to them, some new organizations do change, many think CNN was much more to the left but has since come more to the middle in their reporting.


----------



## schmack (Sep 10, 2005)

RasputinAXP said:


> Censorship is when the government disallows free speech.
> Moderation is when a forum thread gets out of hand and locked.


Moderation is simply censorship.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

schmack said:



> Moderation is simply censorship.


What _government_ is censoring the posts here?

Moderation happens to keep this place sane, otherwise it would become just like the wild wild west.


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Michael P said:


> What _government_ is censoring the posts here?
> 
> Moderation happens to keep this place sane, otherwise it would become just like the wild wild west.


I agree. It is along the lines of why I say Dish does not have to carry a News channel it does not want to. That is not censorship as the term is being used, that is an owner making decisions even if based on political beliefs. Same with the "owner" of a forum. Those who think it is censorship can start their own forum and then run it as they please so there is no censorship. If the Government told DBS Talk and every forum to delete or modify or not allow posts, that would be censorship.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

There is nothing wrong with censorship.

We do it to ourselves all day long, if we did not there would be no civility.


----------



## samhevener (Feb 23, 2006)

mnassour said:


> Let me get this straight....you are KIDDING me!
> 
> We've got bloody RT which does NOTHING but slam the US and praise Putin 24/7, but Al Jazeera English was short-circuited by a few ... uninformed people?
> 
> ...


RT is much better than all those Home Shopping Channels (aka 24 hour infomericals) that take up bandwidth on Dish.


----------



## schmack (Sep 10, 2005)

Michael P said:


> What _government_ is censoring the posts here?
> 
> Moderation happens to keep this place sane, otherwise it would become just like the wild wild west.


The government isn't the only power to whom the word censorship applies. Any entity with the power to suppress any content for any reason is censoring that content.

Moderating a forum like this can justify close and lock, but not delete.

Or not, whatever, lets not argue.


----------



## paja (Oct 23, 2006)

DISH gets RT
Comcast gets BBC WORLD NEWS
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/b...l=1&adxnnlx=1323872354-z+ldmkydudKocyiZoDx86w


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

schmack said:


> Moderating a forum like this can justify close and lock, but not delete.


Nope. Moderating can justify any action needed to keep the forum on track. Deleting is a key tool and _not_ deleting something is probably the biggest complaint we get as moderators. Feel free to read the site's User Agreement and PM any moderator if you have any further questions.

As for the topic of this thread, I watched an hour or two when RT was first launched in DISH to see what it was. I did not find it any worse than the Public Interest "Free Speech TV" (9415) that has been on DISH for years. I would prefer BBC World News but with a couple hundred other channels to choose from I'm not forced to watch RT (or FSTV).


----------



## schmack (Sep 10, 2005)

James Long said:


> Moderating can justify any action needed to keep the forum on track. Deleting is a key tool and _not_ deleting something is probably the biggest complaint we get as moderators.


Nope. I do not doubt that not deleting something is the biggest complaint moderators get. However, that doesn't change the fact that when practiced it is indeed censorship, and *ahem* should not be done. Your attitude in this regard as a forum moderator is exactly what I needed to effectively demonstrate my original point on the subject. Thanks for that, I guess. Core belief here: Free people who enjoy (by rite of blood) freedom of speech should not have that freedom revoked in the name of moderation.

As for RT, I thought it was interesting to watch for ten minutes or so. If you can think for yourself the propaganda level there is astounding to see.


----------



## RasputinAXP (Jan 23, 2008)

schmack said:


> Nope. I do not doubt that not deleting something is the biggest complaint moderators get. However, that doesn't change the fact that when practiced it is indeed censorship, and *ahem* should not be done. Your attitude in this regard as a forum moderator is exactly what I needed to effectively demonstrate my original point on the subject. Thanks for that, I guess. Core belief here: Free people who enjoy (by rite of blood) freedom of speech should not have that freedom revoked in the name of moderation.
> 
> As for RT, I thought it was interesting to watch for ten minutes or so. If you can think for yourself the propaganda level there is astounding to see.


THE MODERATORS ARE NOT THE GOVERNMENT. THIS IS NOT CENSORSHIP. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. I mean, seriously. Your core belief does not entitle you to try and tell a forum moderator on a site you don't own what to do. Pop into your local coffee shop and start screaming obscenities at the top of your lungs and see if your first amendment rights get "trampled on."

Seriously, go start your own satellite forum and run it yourself.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Rasputin above nailed it... I don't know why this concept always confuses people.

Censorship is when the government intervenes... Everything else is just house rules.

You may have the right to free speech and a gun... But I have the right to forbid you from my home if you bring that gun or speech... You have the right to leave if you do not like the rules in my home.

Think of a web site like this as the web site owner's home... You obey his rules when inside, and that includes his rules on moderating what can be discussed and how it can be discussed. Don't like the rules? Go to another home(forum) or build your own.

Forum moderation is not remotely the same as censorship.

Now back to topic!


----------



## Orion9 (Jan 31, 2011)

I just looked at a couple of dictionaries and neither made any assertion that a censor had to be working for a government. For example dictionary.com says:

1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2. any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
... several more.

My Oxford paper dictionary says that a censor is "a person authorized...." but doesn't say authorized by whom.

So it seems to me that a moderator can be called a censor if he likes.

But the word you chose doesn't change the fact that a site owner will control the site as he wishes.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

I suppose if you are technical... Censoring could apply even to one's own self-editing... Do you ever not say something like a curse word in front of your mom or in church? Well, then you may have just censored yourself!

But the larger point when people talk of censorship usually is meant to be something like a government controlling the people by forbidding certain ideas OR sometimes when groups of people want to remove a book from schools.


----------



## Orion9 (Jan 31, 2011)

Yes, some degree of self-censorship is practiced by just about everyone. And Freud talked about censorship within the mind and dreams.

And then there is the larger form of self-censorship:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship

To get more on topic - some of the stuff that is self-censored by one country's news outlets are likely to be played - or even overplayed! - on another country's news outlets, so a wide variety of sources is probably a good thing.


----------



## TBoneit (Jul 27, 2006)

schmack said:


> Nope. I do not doubt that not deleting something is the biggest complaint moderators get. However, that doesn't change the fact that when practiced it is indeed censorship, and *ahem* should not be done. Your attitude in this regard as a forum moderator is exactly what I needed to effectively demonstrate my original point on the subject. Thanks for that, I guess. Core belief here: Free people who enjoy (by rite of blood) freedom of speech should not have that freedom revoked in the name of moderation.
> 
> As for RT, I thought it was interesting to watch for ten minutes or so. If you can think for yourself the propaganda level there is astounding to see.


If you had your way with no deleting the forum would become a wasteland of spam and malicious links. I've seen what happens to a unmoderated forum. The entire content is 10% good 90% garbage.

With no deletion anyone could post anything against the forum rules and they would get kicked off but their garbage would remain.

You have freedom of speech within limits. You do not ever have the right to stand up in in a movie theater and yell fire, fire, run for your life. Or go around saying kill so & so.

These occupy idiots have the right to say what they believe. 
They do not have the right to ruin others quality of life or their sleep by making constant noise all night long.
They do not have the right to ruin someones business by driving away customers.
They do not have a right to block public streets without a permit from the city.
They do not have the right to squat on private property.

Freedom of speech has limits it isn't total freedom to say anything..


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And with that said, I'll add this reminder:
This is a satellite discussion forum. We discuss satellite services, channels and channel content. This thread is here to discuss the RT channel added to DISH Network. If anyone wants to continue to discuss moderation you may do so via private messages.

This thread is about RT.
:backtotop


----------



## Chihuahua (Sep 8, 2007)

I would like to see Dish Network add Al-Jazeera English, BBC World News, and possibly Sky News if that were possible, as mentioned earlier.


----------



## Ray [email protected] Network (Dec 28, 2010)

I will submit a programming request form to our programming department for the channels you mentioned. Thanks.



Chihuahua said:


> I would like to see Dish Network add Al-Jazeera English, BBC World News, and possibly Sky News if that were possible, as mentioned earlier.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

OK, I've calmed down now, left for a while, and am back NOT to discuss moderation , but rather RT.

The tragedy of RT is that it is marketed by itself _*and Dishnetwork*_ and a legitimate news channel when one can quickly tell by watching it for no more than ten minutes, that its sole reason for being is to give the world Vladimir Putin's latest party line and to disparage my country unfairly in the eyes of the English-speaking world. Indeed, it reminds me of nothing so much as the German English-language broadcasts during the second World War, technically excellent, but with grotesque content.

As for AJE, well, I can only agree with those up above who now say it is a legitimate news organization for the reasons stated. I have been away from this particular forum for quite a while and apparently missed the firestorm the last request for AJE caused.

Ray C...if you would, please, put my name on the list of those who will switch from DirecTV to Dishnework the day AJE appears on your system. Oh and of course, in HD please!


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

I doubt that Dish is paying anything for this channel and I think it is good for Americans to see what other countries are saying about them. Anyone with half a brain should be able to realize that this is blatant propaganda and should be able to separate the facts from the propaganda.

No one has been complaining about CCTV from the Chinese government. Dish has been carrying them for ever since I became a subscriber. The thing I like about CCTV, is that their news programs contain real news and not much analysis. Yes, I still know that CCTV determines what they will and will not air, but at least I get real facts. Many times, I see more news on CCTV than on CNN, Fox & MSNBC.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Complete agreement about CCTV. The Chinese are very circumspect. The Russians yell in your face "look how bad you are!"

I would _still _like to know the process by which RT was added. Whose wagon wheel was greased.....


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Every country has propaganda... We do it too, but since we are here, people tend to overlook it. Citizens of the rest of the world don't like some our stereotyping and generalizations of them either!

We also do not really have any unbiased news sources... So I fail to see anything unique or troubling if another country has a biased and inaccurate news channel. It just means they are becoming more like us!


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

[email protected] Network said:


> I did put all of your requests in


I would also like BBC WORLD NEWS. It''s on one of our locals here, but it's only on for thirty minutes a day.


----------



## Paul Secic (Dec 16, 2003)

mnassour said:


> I don't think CNNI is a possibility as IIRC they won't sell it domestically. But BBC World is out there for the asking (and paying for).
> 
> ....along with Al Jazeera English. reach:


When I had U-verse in late 2009 they had CNNI.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Every country has propaganda... We do it too, but since we are here, people tend to overlook it. Citizens of the rest of the world don't like some our stereotyping and generalizations of them either!
> 
> We also do not really have any unbiased news sources... So I fail to see anything unique or troubling if another country has a biased and inaccurate news channel. It just means they are becoming more like us!


Point well taken, sir!:lol:

I guess the particular burr under my saddle when it comes to RT is that it seems to be not a particular news channel, but rather something that is simply targeted to spread bad news, real or imagined, about the U.S....something on the lines of of the old Radio Moscow (for those of you who remember shortwave).

Like I say, what burns me is that something like this 24/7 slam gets carriage on Dish, while something that I (at least) have to consider considerably more useful and unbiased (AJE) remains left out in the cold.



Paul Secic said:


> When I had U-verse in late 2009 they had CNNI.


Well I would certainly like to have them if they're available. I remember watching their feed on the Ku side of my old 10' dish, marveling at how much more I liked it over the domestic CNN.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I have yet to find a news channel that is absolutely unbiased ... they ALL play to the bias of their audience, giving them the news they want to hear (or at least presented in the way they feel the audience wants to hear it). Most throw away any chance of becoming a truly unbiased news source in exchange for better ratings for their network. The channels play to their audiences. Cable news has become a lot more like professional wrestling with characters playing roles (yes Virginia, there is role play in wrestling) instead of simply telling the news.

Biased news is what most of the audience wants ... they just want the bias that matches their opinion. Fortunately we have several different biases to choose from. Perhaps in this world where "Free Speech TV" has been on DISH for years another "truth telling" channel is what the audience wants.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> I have yet to find a news channel that is absolutely unbiased ... they ALL play to the bias of their audience, giving them the news they want to hear (or at least presented in the way they feel the audience wants to hear it). <snip>


That's just it, James. RT is NOT a news channel such as Fox, CNN, or AJE. It's sole purpose is to disparage the United States in the eyes of the English-speaking world. Each and every story concerning the U.S. paints us in a negative light. If you have not seen it I urge you...and everyone else here... to go online to http://rt.com/on-air/ and watch their live feed.

I would be thrilled to have an at least semi-impartial news service from Russia. I'd fight for it to be on both systems as I do AJE. But RT is NOT that service.



James Long said:


> Cable news has become a lot more like professional wrestling with characters playing roles (yes Virginia, there is role play in wrestling) instead of simply telling the news.


An absolutely brilliant comparison sir. Nailed it!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mnassour said:


> That's just it, James. RT is NOT a news channel such as Fox, CNN, or AJE. It's sole purpose is to disparage the United States in the eyes of the English-speaking world. Each and every story concerning the U.S. paints us in a negative light.


I have not watched every story on RT. My experience with them is with reporting on other countries, such as the tsunami that hit Japan. With limited experience I feel that it is foolish to judge "every" story about the US to be disparaging. Absolute judgements are troublesome.

If all one has seen on AJE were stories about the US with a negative slant it would be easy to assume that ALL of their US stories were negative. If ALL of AJE's stories about the US had a positive slant I'd be more curious about their motives. There is no way that AJE or any other network operates with no slant at all. It isn't human. With their connection to AJ Arabic (which has a very poor reputation for how they portray the US) there remains a question of motive.



mnassour said:


> If you have not seen it I urge you...and everyone else here... to go online to http://rt.com/on-air/ and watch their live feed.


Or tune to channel 280 ... it is available to nearly every DISH subscriber (all the AT120 and above packages).



mnassour said:


> I would be thrilled to have an at least semi-impartial news service ...


Yes. But my point is that impartial is in the eye of the beholder. Pick ANY news network and you will find people who would swear on their mother's grave that the network is impartial. Even though there are others who would certainly not agree. AJE would fall into that category, just like the others.

We got RT ... I would have preferred a channel with a more western bias such as BBC World News or CNN International's English feed but we got RT.

Fortunately RT was placed in the 280's away from the US news channels. It isn't something that people are going to trip over when looking in the 200-211 news range. Just like FSTV on channel 9415 ... if people want that viewpoint they have to go looking for it.

(Now if only we could get CCNEW off of channel 265 and put it on 281. It doesn't belong with the religious channels.)


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> It's sole purpose is to disparage the United States in the eyes of the English-speaking world. Each and every story concerning the U.S. paints us in a negative light.


You wouldn't be Frank Stallone would you?

Did you ever think that not everyone in the world in impressed with U.S. policies and that they don't have to buy into your way of thinking?

Did you ever think that maybe RT's 'slant' is more accurate than say ... Fox's?


----------



## JWKessler (Jun 3, 2004)

mnassour said:


> Let me get this straight....you are KIDDING me!
> 
> BTW, as I was typing this I switched on RT, just to make sure it was what I remembered. Within 30 seconds I had been told how Newt Gingrich or Romney as President would curtail American civil liberties and the crawl at the bottom of the screen chided the US for "interfering" with its comments about the Russian election.
> 
> Sorry for the rant, folks. This just pissed me off (as I guess you can tell).


There is also a certain American news channel that spends a lot of time attacking the current President of the United States, suggesting he isn't a real American and calling him a socialist and much worse. By your standards I presume you would also have that channel removed?


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

James Long said:


> Fortunately RT was placed in the 280's away from the US news channels. It isn't something that people are going to trip over when looking in the 200-211 news range. Just like FSTV on channel 9415 ... if people want that viewpoint they have to go looking for it.


And indeed, that's a very useful thing.



SayWhat? said:


> You wouldn't be Frank Stallone would you?
> 
> Did you ever think that not everyone in the world in impressed with U.S. policies and that they don't have to buy into your way of thinking?
> 
> Did you ever think that maybe RT's 'slant' is more accurate than say ... Fox's?





JWKessler said:


> There is also a certain American news channel that spends a lot of time attacking the current President of the United States, suggesting he isn't a real American and calling him a socialist and much worse. By your standards I presume you would also have that channel removed?


Absolutely not, and with no disrespect intended JWK, I believe you have mischaracterized Fox News.

There is a LARGE difference between Fox (which I do not care for) and RT.

Fox is a legitimate news channel, with a lot of commentary. The commentary is labeled as such. On RT, the commentary is presented as a factual news story. That's the difference between a legitimate news channel with, I believe, a rightward bias, and a channel simply devoted to promoting propaganda, RT.

As much as I disagree with the viewpoints usually expressed on Fox News, it is an important part of our media culture, for it raises questions that need to be addressed. Operations such as RT simply tell us how terrible we are...without offering any alternatives.

And no SayWhat? I'm not Frank Stallone.

And I can't believe I've just dedicated a post to defending Fox News! :uglyhamme

At any rate, I think I'm done. I feel like the guy under the hammer above!


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

mnassour said:


> And I can't believe I've just dedicated a post to defending Fox News! :uglyhamme


Thank you for _your_ "fair and balanced" defense of Fox News! If people from all viewpoints would only see things as you just did above America would not be as divided as it is today. While I am a "Fox fan" that does not preclude me from tuning to CNN from time to time. MSNBC OTOH... :sure:

If not for this thread I would not have known about RT's "bias" (although considering where that channel originates I'm not surprised).

It's time we got an English service from a different viewpoint. How is Germany's "DW"? I used to get 15 minutes of their news back when Sky Angel was still on satellite (from an Arkansas local station that was carried nationally on SA).


----------



## tampa8 (Mar 30, 2002)

Michael P said:


> It's time we got an English service from a different viewpoint. How is Germany's "DW"? I used to get 15 minutes of their news back when Sky Angel was still on satellite (from an Arkansas local station that was carried nationally on SA).


There are many English language alternatives on Dish, DW as one. It is on once or twice a day on Link or Free Speech. There's the free news in English on TVJapan, EuroNews (my favorite a great news source) and some others.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

> Fox is a legitimate news channel, with a lot of commentary.


About as legitimate a news channel as National Lampoon.


----------



## mnassour (Apr 23, 2002)

Michael P said:


> It's time we got an English service from a different viewpoint. How is Germany's "DW"? I used to get 15 minutes of their news back when Sky Angel was still on satellite (from an Arkansas local station that was carried nationally on SA).


First of all, I appreciate your kind words, though I'm not sure I deserve them!:icon_peac

Regarding DW, my American sensibilities find it...well...rather boring. Lots of Euro-centric features and a smidgen of current news. What I'm looking for is breaking news from an non-Western source in English, and for me AJE is the only thing that fits the bill.

The problem with AJE on Link, I believe, is that the newscasts are delayed. I get this impression from some of them that I've seen, and if I'm wrong, please someone correct me. On the other hand MHz Worldview (available only on DirecTV's International Dish) seems to cut into AJE, France 24, Euronews and others as live newscasts are running.

Frankly, MHz is the only thing keeping me with DirecTV right now.

And for those of you who might be interested, here's the link to this little-known...but invaluable...channel: http://www.mhznetworks.org/mhzworldview/


----------



## jsk (Dec 27, 2006)

Move to the DC area, and get 10 MHz channels 24 hours/day. If I find some spare time, I am going to try to pull those channels in. Don't know if I can from Fallston, MD, but I get all of the other DC channels.


----------



## Michael P (Oct 27, 2004)

MHz Worldview is one of the subchannels carried by my secondary PBS affiliate. I get the impression that it's entertainment programs from around the world, I have yet to see news (but then again I have not watched it enough). Unfortunately that is one of the OTA channels without guide data on my 622.


----------



## CeeWoo (Dec 1, 2008)

SayWhat? said:


> About as legitimate a news channel as National Lampoon.


Don't be dissin' on NL :lol:


----------

