That's a pretty awesome trailer that reminds me of a terrible movie that was terrible even when it was released, that I should watch again, called Brainscan - featuring Eddie Furlong. If you look at it's RT page it has a 17% critic score but 61% liked it - so it's definitely one of those weird "cult" flicks. Eh, whatever - reviews suck these days just like mainstream news you can't delineate shit from em, just like this game - it's been getting pretty bad scores and pretty good scores. Me, if I wanted to play this game - I'd just go play Quake. That game is still badass to this day.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by oritteropo.

It's like playing a RTS game

@Janus
you are not alone,many here on the sift tend to lean in your direction,however,i find this to be misplaced skepticism.

when it comes to russian internal policies,and actions abroad i tend to agree with the assertion that RT leans towards russian state "message of the day".similar to how CNN,MSNBC and FOX play that game.

but when it comes to being critical of the USA,and considering just who chris hedges is as a journalist and writer.i find the criticism un-warranted.

that is just my opinion,you are free to disagree of course.

though i would like to point out that many media outlets that have produced fantastic content,with exceptional journalists,are under siege.TeLeSUR and aljazeera english are in the crapper due to funding,and small,independent outlets are also struggling to compete with the megalithic corporate media to bring critical analysis in these dangerous times.

so while i agree that a venue such as RT should be approached with a modicum of skepticism,i also feel very strongly that we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

chris hedges has been a extremely vocal critic of power,corruption and the devastating affects of neoliberalism.pulitzer prize winning author and journalist.

so while this may be on on RT,it is chris hedges that has credit with me.he has proven to be a man of integrity.

While I have long understood that most Democrat politicians are just more sneaky about their corporate masters than their Republican counterparts, I don't plan to watch this due to the obvious purpose behind RT (as run by the Russian government) doing a piece on it.

@vil
here is the thing though,and it is something that i find very disappointing.

when maddow came over from air america radio,who worked with such hosts as thom hartman,sam seder,lawrence odonnell,al franken,laura flanders.she was fantastic.

yes,she was a tad biased and the political points she chose to cover tended to lean liberal democrat,BUT her analysis and her ability to break down complicated and complex political issues into easily digested and understood nuggets,was a talent i truly admired in her.

in my opinion,she was the best host MSNBC had on their channel,and proved time and time again just how political saavy she was,and her ability to expose political shenanigans was unmatched by any other host..again..my opinion..but then obama won his second term,and i noticed a shift in her show.

she slowly stopped being so voracious when it came to exposing the more...shall we say..venal and destructive policies obama was beginning to execute,and started making excuses for those activities.apologizing in essence.

ok..ok..she was becoming an apologist for the highest office in amercia.there..happy?

to say that watching this transition bummed me out is a understatement.for years i could always count on maddow to break down and disseminate political talking points,partisan wordplay and reveal the bullshit behind the polished turd.

then here comes the run up to the 2016 election,and i watched maddow,in real time,go from a part-time apologist for obama to a full time apologist for hillary clinton.

you can watch her actively cheerlead for clinton against sanders.even when the DNC was caught RED-HANDED fucking sanders over,maddow downplayed the entire mess,and focused on debbie wasserman shultz,while giving clinton a pass.as if debbie wasserman shultz was in no way connected to hillary..even when the evidence plainly proved that there WAS a connection.

so you are right @vil .
much of how maddow disseminates political situations is eerily similar to RT,when it comes to state sponsored cheerleading.

host:the problem we are being faced with is:apple or oranges.

viewer: but what about those bananas over there? and those cherries.

host:there are NO bananas or cherries!
there are ONLY apples and oranges!

viewer:but i am pretty sure i see bananas and cherries.

host:you are being a pinko commie,and why do hate america? are you a sympathetic terrorist? or just simply a racist?

viewer:sorry i asked.i don't want to be called an unpatriotic racist.

at least that is how i see it.
not saying my opinion amounts to anything more than screaming into a wind tunnel,but i used to really admire maddow.

I dont watch her often at all and can not say i dislike her. But this one clip is really bad IMHO and the previous one on the sift was not very good either. She picks a good topic and more or less has a good angle on it but the form is basically what RT or FOX do - the school bully approach.

The numbers up to that 9:00 mark do not support the hysterical talk. They are what they are. The questions are bad, answers irrelevant. Then we get the delusion confirmation, which is the best bit, and she sees it out more or less OK. But the first 9 minutes is either badly prepared or badly executed IMHO. The first minute is pure WTF bad.

I tried watching from just before the 9 minute mark and upvoted the video for its last 3 minutes.

Great news everybody: Trump supporters are deluded.

WTF? This "show" is possibly as bad as RT. At the same time not bad enough to be funny.

American people say "yeessssss"!

edit: there is a good joke at 9:30

My only problem with this statement is that by calling Hedges a Russian propagandist you are implying that Hedges is working with or for Putin in the service of Russia.
While anything I possible I suppose I find it more likely that RT is using Hedges and Hedges is using RT. I believe that Hedges genuinely wants a better United States, while RT is just happy to sow chaos, and at this point chaos is really unavoidable anyhow.

No one knows what the clown is going to do on Monday. He will most certainly drop the sanctions at some point and let Putin keep Crimea. Ukraine is likely to stalemate long-term. If they can make a "good deal" he will hand Putin "eastern europe" on a plate. Never mind that he buys his brides there. RT just provides the philosophical sauce. These are whole countries full of human beings that are on the line, not some semantic details.

Rachel is a Hillary fan? What else is new?

The troops in Poland are purely symbolic. Troops are not necessary at this point. Commitment is important, but the clown is committed only to making himself look good.
What would be the point of getting Russian troops out of Eastern Europe if they could come back at will? How can you argue against NATO at the very time when Russia thinks it can take over any part of Europe that is not protected by NATO?

In any case you only want to publish stolen e-mails if there is something criminal in them. If not you are the criminal for stealing them.

If Hedges works for RT then he is a russian propagandist by definition. That does not mean that some of what he says cant be true.

No, being on RT does not negate his reputation, but it tarnishes it, imo. It doesn't make him a liar, it makes him SUSPECT....less trustworthy, not untrustworthy.
I think using the reporter's chosen organization's reputation as one piece of evidence to make that determination is proper, I think we may just disagree on the weight we give that piece of evidence.

I explained that he doesn't have to stoop to the level of demagogue to serve the propaganda machine by lending them his reputation, and that harm's his rep. He may be 100% honest and factual, but he still helps spread obvious propaganda just by his presence, and I think both he and they know it well, and that's a huge disappointment from him for me.

Yes Chomsky is a good example of how, even though he's correct in his assertions, he gives a skewed view by omitting a comparison with the only alternatives (in speeches).

Again, imo, all news is suspect, there is hardly an example of "hard hitting journalism" in main stream media today that's not tainted with bias either by the reporters or the news organization that employs them. I'm not special, I don't have access to good news, and I'm not sure I could recognize it if I did, at this point. I think most reporting done today is at least in part an echo chamber/bubble meant to reinforce bias, which is why it bothers me so much when one of the few decent reporters takes a job with a propaganda factory...choices matter, who you surround yourself with matters, and surrounding yourself with unapologetic liars should hurt anyone's rep, especially a reporter with a reputation for telling unbiased truth.

Being critical of power doesn't cut it for me if it's designed to hide or excuse other criticism of another power....that's why I need to see him be critical of Putin on RT to regain some trust...until then, bye Felicia.

@newtboy
you misunderstood.

respectable investigative journalists gain that respect by being consistent with their reporting.

chris hedges is such a journalist.

but,by your metric,him being on RT negates that respect.now this is an assumption on my part,but i am using your words to come to that assumed conclusion.you have yet to agree or disagree with what chris hedges is saying,choosing instead to attack the medium in which he is saying it.this is your right,i just happen to disagree with you on this matter.

i refer back to one of my original comments,and a point i tried (and i guess failed?) to reiterate:discernment is the key.

so in a sense..yes..it is our responsibility to do our due diligence to vette the veracity of an investigative reporter.

those "reporters" who shill for either the democrats or republicans reveal themselves as the whores they are fairly quickly.

demagogues can almost be instantly identified due to their constant appeals to emotion.(keith olbermans new youtube channel from GQ "the resistance" comes to mind).

and reporters who are simply bad or lazy are quickly revealed as well.by other reporters.

let's take @bcglorf review of chomsky,and how chomsky is singular in his constant criticism of american foreign policy and asks the question "why can't he,just for once,speak on the positives that america has done in the world,or speculate on what could have happened had american not intervened in third world country A or B".(paraphrased)

now this is not an entirely unfair question,and in chomsky's books..he does address the very specifics that bcglorf would like to see chomsky address,but in lectures you are lucky to get a sentence in regards to such subjects.

but notice that while bcglorf would like to see chomsky speak in more broad terms,he never once questions the veracity of the details chomsky is laying down.

do you know why?
because chomsky does his homework,and backs up everything he says.

bcglorf respects chomsky for this,while simultaneously wishing he changed the channel once in awhile.

bcglorf utilized discernment to come to the conclusion that chomsky is a worthy,if infuriating,read/listen.

i do not mean to be speaking for Bc,and maybe i am missing the mark by a long shot using him as an example (if i did,please forgive Bc).

but my basic point is that we ALL discriminate and discern using our own subjective tools,our experiences and ultimately our understandings.

the problem here,and it is the underlying message on this thread,is confirmation bias.

we all know about this,and this election cycle REALLY brought this up to the forefront.

what i find interesting,and always makes me giggle,is how people will point to the "mainstream media" as an outlet for:propaganda,fake news,biased and slanted news ..but..it is NEVER the news THEY consume.the news THEY consume is hard hitting journalism.

so when i see people dismiss a piece that may happen to be on a questionable outlet..i laugh..because MOST outlets are ALL questionable.

so yes my friend,it is up to us to discern what is valid and what is bullshit.secondary sources help.concrete,trackable sources help and discussing and talking with one another is probably the greatest help of all.

but if you reside in an echo chamber,and everybody is just smelling each other farts.then some information may come as a shock.

my faith dictates my politics.
i am a dissident,and a radical.
the dynamic is always "power vs powerlessness",and i am always on the side of the powerless.

so it should be no surprise that on my list are people such as chomsky or hedges.

because they criticize power.

What kind of balance are you speaking of? For the sake of argument, I'll assume that you mean spending somewhat equal time and effort on different sides of an argument.

That kind of balance can be expected from a news outlet. Many of them, especially American ones, overcook is massively by refusing to make judgements on the validity of opposing arguments. If argument A is backed by empirical evidence and argument B is smoke and mirrors, argument B should receive ridicule, not the same kind of respect that A receives.

Now, applying this kind of balance to individuals strikes me as wierd. They are not obliged to give a balanced view: they are obliged, as journalists, to present facts, and offer interpretations. The issues we're talking about here are not disputes between neighbours. We are talking about the war on terror, macroeconomics, propaganda, things of the utmost importance. And the media is doing a woeful job at presenting any dissenting view.

Thing is, you can get the major consensus narrative from countless news outlets out there. Want to here about the supposed benefits of multinational trade agreements? The NYT and the WaPo have dozens upon dozens of articles with praise of TTIP and TPP. If, however, you would like to hear about the consequences of previous trade agreements, or just some hard math on the numbers they like to throw in there, you won't find any. You'll have to go to Dean Baker at the CEPR, to Yves Smith at NakedCapitalism, you'll read Rick Wolff's take on it.

These people do everything in their power to restore the balance that the media drowned in buckets of party-line puff pieces. People recognise RT for propaganda, but somehow think propaganda stops when ownership is private.

Try to find proper articles about the global assassination program (drone warfare) and its effect on sovereign people abroad -- won't find anything in the media, you'll have to go to Jeremy Scahill.

Try to find proper articles about the desolation brought to communities in the developed world by (the current form of) capitalism, the epidemic of loniliness, the breaking apart of the social fabric, the monetarisation of every aspect of life -- silence. What about the slavery-like conditions it creates through indebtedness? The absurd inequality? Nothing.

What about the massive atrocities in Jemen? There was plenty about the atrocities committed by Russia in Syria, but when Saudis use US weapons to destroy an entire country, mum's word.

There is no balance in the media. They are the gatekeepers of knowledge, and anything outside the establishment's agreed upon consensus is ignored, marginalised, ridiculed, or straight up demonized.

CJ Hopkins had a great piece at Counterpunch the other day, titled Why Ridiculous Official Propaganda Still Works. He puts it more succinctly than I ever could. Reality doesn't matter, not for the mainstream media. The narrative matters.

And that's why I listen to dissenting voices like Chris Hedges, Abby Martin or Thom Hartmann, even when they are employed by a state propaganda outlet.

29 comments, most of them rather long and more-or-less well reasoned, yet none about the content.

I get if you don't trust RT. It's a propaganda outlet of a foreign government, after all. But RT is not Chemical Ali style of propaganda: it is solid, well-researched reporting on many topics, subtly slanted on others, and completely balls-to-the-wall denial of reality on others again.

You want to take that as a reason to ignore it entirely? Knock yourself out.

I won't. Which isn't saying much, because I prefer text over video.

Anyway, they regularly offer a valuably "Korrektiv" with regards to reporting in the mainstream media. Of course I would prefer if I could get that from a less-dubious outlet like, maybe, the Indepedant, or the NZZ, but I can't.

Let's talk about the content of this clip, shall we.

Hedges references the Prop-or-Not pieces run by the WaPo. Does anyone here disagree that those were a total and utter smear job? Painting Truthout, Truthdig, Counterpunch, Alternet, BlackAgendaReport, NakedCapitalism and others as stooges of the Kremlin is such an obvious attempt to discredit dissenting voices that it's, quite frankly, rather offensive. Yves Smith and Glen Ford as mouthpieces of the Kremlin... my ass cheeks.

On the other hand, quite a lot of journalists in the US seem to have embraced the Red Scare with open arms, seeing as it gives an excuse as to why their previous HRC lost against the orange-skinned buffoon. Kyle illustrated it nicely with Rachel Maddow.

Second point: they had James Clapper present the report. Seriously? The fucker was caught lying under oath during the initial stages of the NSA revelations. Wasn't the fuckface also in charge of the satellite reconnaisence prior to the Iraq war, who could have presented imagery that debunked the claims of WMD "factories", and decided not to? He is just as trustworthy as Chemical Ali, but less entertaining.

Third: half the report was about RT. Why? I thought it was meant to outline how they "hacked" the election? What does their propaganda outlet have to do with that? And the critique they presented... has anyone read the passage about the "alleged Wall Street greed"? They are having a laugh, and people take it seriously.

Fourth: it distracts from the aspects of HRC's loss they don't want to be a subject of public discussion: class issues. They offered nothing for the working class, who got a shoddy deal over the last decades, and tried to focus entirely on identity politics, completely denying even the existence of class issues. Which is also why it's now the "white, male worker" who is to blame. Nevermind that >50% of white, female workers also voted Trump. Nevermind that significant portions of non-white working class folks also voted Trump. Can't be. According to the narrative, these people are minorities first, working-class second, and identity politics always trumps class politics. Except it didn't.

All this rage at the "deplorables", the "less educated"... it just reeks massively of class bigotry. Those plebs decided to vote for someone other than our beloved Queen HRC? How dare they...

And finally, RT's own part of this segment, about the credibility of the intelligence community's claims. Any disagreement on this? Anyone? Anyone think the torturers at the CIA are trustworthy enough to take their word without hard evidence?

Keep in mind, it only addresses this point if he criticizes Putin or Russia on RT. Any other criticism somewhere else, not so much.

Edit: it is because he's seen as anti authoritarian that makes him the perfect person for RT to use in an effort to "prove" they aren't just shills for an authoritarian. Just his presence would be a glaring "we aren't Putin propagandists" sign to many....but clearly that's what they are.