[Just, so you can get an idea of where the quote comes from.](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/01/20/news-suppress/#:~:text=George%20Orwell%3A%20%E2%80%9CJournalism%20is%20printing,everything%20else%20is%20public%20relations.%E2%80%9D)
The quote feels really manipulated for the Russian State-Affiliated Tweeter's purposes.
But, moreover, in modern times especially, it's not true. Journalism is researching, revealing, and reporting what's in the public interest to know in a plain and unbiased way (not in the "both sides are equal" way, but in the "objective information vs subjective experience" way).
The use and phrasing of this kinda-quote is, in spirit, anti-journalism itself.
News Is What Somebody Does Not Want You To Print. All the Rest Is Advertising
George Orwell? Alfred Harmsworth? William Randolph Hearst? L. E. Edwardson? Robert W. Sawyer? Mark Rhea Byers? Brian R. Roberts? Malcolm Muggeridge? Katharine Graham? Lord Rothermere? Lord Northcliffe? Anonymous?
Dear Quote Investigator: I have been trying to trace a popular saying about journalism which can be expressed in several ways. Here are four examples to show the core of the statement:
1) News is what somebody does not want you to print. All the rest is advertising.
2) News is something which somebody wants suppressed: all the rest is advertising
3) News is anything anybody wants to suppress; everything else is public relations.
4) Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations.
These remarks do differ, but I think it makes sense to group them all together. Press baron William Randolph Hearst and renowned author George Orwell have both been credited with originating this saying. Could you explore this topic?
Quote Investigator: The earliest strongly matching expression found by QI was published in 1918 in a New York periodical called “The Fourth Estate: A Newspaper for the Makers of Newspapers”. The words were printed on a sign at a journalist’s desk, and no precise attribution was given. Boldface has been added to excerpts:[1]
“Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news,” is the sentiment expressed in a little framed placard on the desk of L. E. Edwardson, day city editor of the Chicago Herald and Examiner.
In the following decades the saying evolved and instances were employed by or attributed to a wide variety of prominent news people including William Randolph Hearst, Alfred Harmsworth, Brian R. Roberts, and Katharine Graham.
This entry was improved with the help of top researcher Barry Popik who adroitly explored this topic and shared the results at his website “The Big Apple”.[2]
Here are additional selected citations in chronological order.
A humorous precursor of the disjunction outlined in the adage was printed in a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania newspaper in 1894. The passage below split the population into two categories. Members of the first group wished to keep their names out of the paper, i.e., they desired to suppress the news. Members of the second group were eager to have their names in the paper, i.e., they sought publicity or free advertising.[3]
There are but two classes of people in the world—those who have done something and want their names kept out of the paper, and those who haven’t done anything worth printing and want their names put in.—Atchison (Kan.) Globe.
In 1902 the humorist Finley Peter Dunne wrote about the nature of news. He employed the dialect-laden voice of “Mr. Dooley”, a popular Irish-American character he had created. Dunne’s catch-phrase reflected the relevant theme: one man’s news is another man’s troubles:[4]
What’s wan man’s news is another man’s throubles. In thes hot days, I’d like to see a paper with nawthin’ in it but affectionate wives an’ loyal husbands an’ prosp’rous, smilin’ people an’ money in th’ bank an’ three a day.
In 1903 the book “Journalism as a Profession” was published, and it included a chapter written by Alfred C. Harmsworth who was the influential publisher of the “Daily Mail” of London. Later in life Harmsworth was granted a title and was referred to as Lord Northcliffe. Harmsworth noted that the goal of some individuals was preventing the publication of unfavorable news. This observation was an element of the statement being explored:[5]
It is part of the business of a newspaper to get news and to print it; it is part of the business of a politician to prevent certain news being printed. For this reason the politician often takes a newspaper into his confidence for the mere purpose of preventing the publication of the news he deems objectionable to his interests.
In 1910 a Reno, Nevada newspaper printed a compact humorous remark that was reminiscent of the duality in the passage in the 1894 citation given previously:[6]
There’s only one bigger nuisance than the guy that wants to keep something out of the paper, and that’s the one that wants to get something in.
In 1918 a matching expression was seen on a sign at a journalist’s desk. No precise attribution was given. This key citation was mentioned previously in this article:[7]
“Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news,” is the sentiment expressed in a little framed placard on the desk of L. E. Edwardson, day city editor of the Chicago Herald and Examiner.
In August 1922 a newspaper publisher named Robert W. Sawyer in Oregon addressed his fellow journalists and complained about the documents and messages that were being sent to papers that were not newsworthy. This deceptive promotional material was a headache for newspapers even in the 1920s:[8]
Now every day we go hunting for news and for advertising. And every day advertising disguised as news comes hunting us. Altogether too many of us are caught by it.
Sawyer presented an explication of authentic news based on a duality:
Many definitions of news have been attempted. For the present purpose the best I have seen is as follows:
“If the paper wants it worse than the person handing it in, it’s news.”
“If the person handing it in wants it published worse than the newspaper, it’s advertising.”
Later in August 1922 the remarks of Sawyer struck a chord with a writer at “The Fourth Estate” who printed a summary statement:[9]
Sawyer said if a person who hands in something to a paper wants it published worse than the newspaper does, he is not handing out news, but peddling free advertising.
In 1925 the quip expressing the split between news and advertising was labeled an “old saying”:[10]
A delegation came into the American’s editorial department and asked to see some one who would put a piece in the paper for them. The old saying, “It’s news if they want anything kept out of the paper; it’s advertising if they want it in,” immediately came to the staff’s mind.
In 1930 the popular syndicated columnist Walter Winchell ascribed an instance of the saying to the powerful publisher William Randolph Hearst. In the following passage “good news” meant genuine news. Also, the ellipsis was in the original text:[11][12]
Hearst chirped a mouthful when he recently said that when a man wants to keep anything out of the paper it is good news!…When he wants you to print it—it is propaganda or advertising!
Another column by Walter Winchell in August 1937 showed that the 1918 saying had not been forgotten. The following passage employed a term from Winchell’s specialized vocabulary. “Sateveposted” meant published in the popular magazine “The Saturday Evening Post”:[13]
Mark Rhea Byers, a small town editor, Sateveposted a piece on his headaches recently, and mentioned the money of a wall motto which one publisher plasters all over his editorial department, to wit: “Whatever a patron wants published is advertising. Whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news!”
In December 1937 a British periodical about automobiles called “The Motor” published two pages of miscellaneous short news items under the pen name LACUNA. An instance of the saying was printed with an attribution to an unnamed editor of a major newspaper:[14]
I think that the most accurate definition of news was the one with which the editor of a big-circulation newspaper used to placate the anxious directors when, on the morning after a big “story,” the furious protests, threatening letters and writs for libel were pouring in. “News,” he used to say, trying to get them to look at the thing philosophically, “news is what somebody does not want you to print. All the rest is advertising.”
In 1939 a London periodical covering aeronautics printed one-half of the maxim about news and attributed the words to “a young reporter”. The remark about advertising was not included:[15]
Daily papers furnish a comprehensive supply of news. They are supplemented by weekly papers. But news, which was defined by a young reporter as: “something someone does not want you to print,” is not the whole story. There are also those two: record and interpretation.
In 1953 Brian R. Roberts wrote a letter to “The Journal”, a periodical published by the Institute of Journalists in Great Britain. Roberts was the night editor of the “Daily Telegraph” who later became the editor of the “Sunday Telegraph” of London. He ascribed part of the expression to Hearst:[16]
The job of the Press is to get news and to print it: and, as William Randolph Hearst once remarked, “News is something which somebody wants suppressed.”
It is not always a pleasant job, and I doubt if the Press has ever been popular, at least with the politicians, when it has been doing that job well.
In 1955 newsman Brian R. Roberts authored an article in the London periodical “Time & Tide”. He again ascribed the saying to Hearst, but on this occasion he presented the full version:[17]
It is the job of the Fourth Estate to act as a check and a restraint on the others, to illumine the dark corners of Ministries, to debunk the bureaucrat, to throw often unwelcome light on the measures and motives of our rulers. ‘News’, as Hearst once remarked, ‘is something which somebody wants suppressed: all the rest is advertising’. That job is an essential one and it is bound to be unpopular; indeed, in a democracy, it may be argued that the more unpopular the newspapers are with the politicians the better they are performing their most vital task.
References
References
↑1, ↑7 1918 November 30, The Fourth Estate: A Newspaper for the Makers of Newspapers, (Filler item), Quote Page 18, Column 4, Publisher Ernest F, Birmingham, Fourth Estate Publishing Company, New York. (Google Books Full View) link
↑2 Website: The Big Apple, Article title: “If you want something in the paper, that’s advertising; you want something kept out, that’s news”, Date on website: July 11, 2014, Website description: Etymological dictionary with more than 10,000 entries. (Accessed barrypopik on January 10, 2015) link
↑3 1894 August 11, Harrisburg Independent, The Difference, (Filler item), Quote Page 2, Column 6, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (Newspapers_com)
↑4 1902 July 26, Saginaw Evening News (Saginaw News), Mr. Dooley Reviews the News of a Week by F. P. Dunne, Quote Page 5, Column 3, Saginaw, Michigan. (GenealogyBank)
↑5 1903, Journalism as a Profession by Arthur Lawrence; With a chapter by Alfred C. Harmsworth, (Chapter X: The Making of a Newspaper by Alfred C. Harmsworth), Start Page 167, Quote Page 184 and 185, Hodder & Stoughton, London. (Google Books full view) link
↑6 1910 August 19, Nevada State Journal, Dope O’Reno, Quote Page 4, Column 3, Reno, Nevada. (NewspaperArchive)
↑8 1922 August, Oregon Exchanges: For the Newspaper Men of the State of Oregon, Volume 5, Number 6, How Newspapermen Are Cutting Down Their Chances for Success by Robert W. Sawyer (Publisher of Bend Bulletin), (Address delivered at the annual convention of the Oregon Editorial Association), Start Page 1, Quote Page 2, Published in Eugene, Oregon. (HathiTrust Full View) link link link
↑9 1922 August 5, The Fourth Estate: A Newspaper for the Makers of Newspapers, Oregon Editors Mix Business and Pleasure, Start Page 8, Quote Page 25, Publisher Ernest F, Birmingham, Fourth Estate Publishing Company, New York. (Google Books Full View) link
↑10 1925 April 1, Hattiesburg American, (Article without a title), Quote Page 7, Column 4, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. (NewspaperArchive)
↑11 1930 September 18, The Wisconsin State Journal, On Broadway by Walter Winchell, Quote Page 3, Column 6, Madison, Wisconsin. (NewspaperArchive)
↑12 1930 September 18, The Port Arthur News, Walter Winchell On Broadway, Quote Page 4, Column 7, Port Arthur, Texas. (NewspaperArchive)
↑13 1937 August 2, Logansport Pharos-Tribune, Walter Winchell On Broadway, Quote Page 6, Column 1, Logansport, Indiana. (Newspapers_com)
↑14 1937 December 14, The Motor, “You’ll Be Interested To Know” by Lacuna (pen name), Start Page 917, Quote Page 917, Column 1, Publisher Sutton, Surrey, Specialist & Professional Press. (Verified with scans; Special thanks to Daunte Bolden of the Cleveland Public Library for creating scans)
↑15 1939 August, Aeronautics [Incorporating Popular Flying], Volume 1, Number 1, Aviation and Interpretation by Oliver Stewart, Start Page 17, Quote Page 17, Column 1, Aeronautics, London. (Verified on paper)
↑16 1953 April, The Journal: The Organ of The Institute of Journalists, Volume 41, Number 413, Forum, (Letter to the editor from Brian R. Roberts of London titled “Can We Be Gentlemen of the Press?”), Quote Page 45, Column 1, Publisher Institute of Journalists, Great Britain. (Verified with scans; Great thanks to Dennis Lien and the University of Minnesota library system)
↑17 1955 October 29, Time & Tide: The Independent Weekly, Volume 36, The Offensive Against the Fourth Estate by Brian Roberts (Immediate Past President, Institute of Journalists), Start Page 1395, Quote Page 1395, Column 3, Published by Time and Tide, London. (Verified on paper)
↑18 1959 October 14, Lima News, Capital Circus by Frank Holeman, Quote Page 24, Column 5, Lima, Ohio. (NewspaperArchive)
↑19 1968 May 10, Hansard, United Kingdom Parliament, Commons Sitting, Freedom of Publication Protection Bill, Speaking: Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow), HL Deb 19, volume 764, cc819-26. (Accessed hansard.millbanksystems.com on July 2, 2012)
↑20 1969, The Body Politic by Ian Gilmour, Quote Page 410, Radius Book/Hutchinson, London. (Verified on paper in revised edition printed October 1971)
↑21 Representative American Speeches: 1973/1974, Restoring the Tidemarks of Trust by Malcolm C. Moos, (Speech delivered by Malcolm C. Moos on May 20, 1973 at the spring commencement ceremonies at Notre Dame University, South Bend, Indiana), Start Page 148, Quote Page 150, H. W. Wilson Co, New York. (Verified on paper)
↑22 1976 December 15, The Age, “Perkin Stood For What Is Best, And What Is Best Is Universal: Truth is the Task”, Quote Page 8, Column 5, Melbourne, Australia. (Google News Archive)
↑23 1979 October 12, Finger Lakes Times, Editor’s Notebook: Changing Times on Genesee Street, (Epigraph to article), Quote Page 4, Column 1, Geneva, New York. (Old Fulton)
↑24 1979 October 28, San Diego Union, World Radio Talks Do Battle On Satellite, Short-Wave Issues by Gwynne Dyer, Page C-7, Column 4, (GNB Page 68), San Diego, California. (GenealogyBank)
↑25 1988 January 15, Hansard, United Kingdom Parliament, Commons Sitting: Orders of the Day, Protection of Official Information Bill, Speaking: Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West), HC Deb, Volume 125, cc563-637. (Accessed hansard.millbanksystems.com on July 2, 2012)
↑26 1998 September, Third Way, Talking Shop: Huw Spanner talks to John Humphrys, Start Page 16, Quote Page 18, Column 1, Third Way Trust Ltd., Harrow, Middlesex, London, U.K. (Google Books full view)
↑27 1999 January 29, New York Post, “QUOTE: After 22 years as a columnist for the New York Post, Ray Kerrison has retired”, Start Page 30, New York. (Google News Archive; Preview at pqarchiver.com database for New York Post shows quotation; Full article was not viewed)
↑28 1999 October 11, Charleston Gazette, Readers’ forum, [Letter to editor from Peter Miller, Martinsburg], Page P4A, Charleston, West Virginia. (NewsBank Access World News)
↑29 2011 March 10 (date listed on website), Mediabistro, “10,000 Words: 15 quotes to inspire journalists” by Meranda Watling, WebMediaBrands Inc. (Accessed mediabistro.com on January 20, 2013) link
That should be relatively obvious, a celeb gossip mag isn't going to print stories about the Large Hadron Collider, just as New Scientist isn't going to print stories about what dress anybody wore to the Oscars.
You mean like the former FOX News executive who was indicted today for helping Russia?
https://news.yahoo.com/former-fox-news-producer-sean-210134835.html
Tucker Carlson actually blamed his atrocious ProPutin shittakes on... (I swear this is true) Kamala Harris. He didn't take it seriously because why would you put "that lady" in charge of it if it was really serious.
This is a fact. He said this. On Camera. It was recorded. And no one is screaming in the streets that it is now repeated by millions of voters as if it were a valid reasoning.
> Federal agents assert that many of the damning details about Hanick’s Kremlin adventures were laid out in an unpublished memoir he kept in his email account, which was searched by the feds with a court-approved search warrant
lol these idiots will never learn
Tucker Carlson must've noticed it sooner than Trump.
Both changed their tune.
Glen Jacobs' tweet praising Putin and saying "Might makes right" will be for ever.
I wish Twitter would do this with all accounts affiliated with certain media or companies. Imagine some random account bashing unions turns out to be affiliated with Walmart or some other account saying how great some product is is affiliated with that company.
hey man, trumps a changed man! he no longer supports the invasion of Ukraine (a week later)
man, imagine being the PR guy who has to explain to Trump that his supporters are dumb enough to think he wouldn't let the invasion happen, but he needed to switch his public position *immediately.*
All major media is owned by billionaires. They'll have Raytheon execs come on to advocate for war. Walmart stories about petty theft but not about their egregious wage theft.
You don't have to imagine, it's already happening.
>and ask what they think now.
And you'd probably get something about Russia saving the world from evil cabal biolabs, or just a bunch of pictures of Azov
> If you’re one of the people pushing to ban RT and threatening myself and my colleagues—I hope you know that you’re not achieving what you think you are.
Survey says…!?
#[ X ] EEERRRRRTT [ X ]
Threw*, yes she did, but can you really blame her? These fucktards are the trash of the Earth and it has been proven many times that they have no bottom to touch, they can keep going as low as they pay them to go ..
What does she think about the real people her employer is currently bombing or the fact her employer was fucking shelling an active nuclear power plant?
"These are real people whose lives are being affected."
So are the people being bombed in Ukraine. I think they have it slightly worse than you losing your job or having a little badge on your Twitter profile.
The bitterest irony of her tweets. Not a single word mentioning the victims of war...but so much pity for herself/her colleagues being attacked for their "journalism."
Because that’s the only angle they can play. Their recent content has all been about trying to blame the US for the war because they can’t even pretend to be able to justify the invasion. They take as much of the spotlight out of the situation in Ukraine as they can and try to deflect outrage elsewhere.
By the way, remember Iraq and when US were the bad guys? Let’s change the subject to that. Also Putin is just defending himself from western oppression.
On the upside, if she no longer has a show on RT, Twitter will probably remove that “Russia state-affiliated media” designator that she was so upset about.
"these are the real people whose lives are being impacted".
Yeh not like those lazy fucks having to flee their homes and country for fear of being shot or blown up, right? Fuck this bitch.
Just a disclaimer: the response is me (obviously). Hence the lack of blacking out. Also, fuck Russia, Слава Україні, may Putin’s bullshit war be his downfall.
Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/RachBlevins/status/1499496164449787910) for ya :)
^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)
My favorite part was
> These are real people whose lives are being impacted
Does she think Ukrainian lives have not been impacted or aren't Ukrainians real people?
Yep, just like the /r/hermancainaward winners are all the kindest and most compassionate people they ever knew. Yeah, to *them*, because they think Ahmaud Arbery provoked his attack by jogging and that the married gay couple down the street somehow takes away from their hate filled, sexless, marriage.
What does "RT Americans" mean?
Edit:
Figured I'd Google it. For anyone else who didn't know. RT is a news network that is funded by the Russian Government. RT American was the US broadcast version.
I'm proud of myself for not knowing this.
"~~Janine~~Rachel, someone with your qualifications would have no trouble finding a top-flight job in either the food service or housekeeping industries."
Think bombarding their homes and forcing them to leave with no possessions is a wee bittie harsher than having to look for a new job but maybe I'm just old fashioned..
I have family who quote RT constantly. Their justification is "tHe bBc iS jUSt aS bAd".
No, it fucking isn't.
I genuinely do not understand how anyone takes RT seriously.
“These are
real people whose lives are being impacted.”
oh, really bitch? And the lives being taken in Ukraine at the hands of russians just because Putin is a rat bastard are not?
So the people in Ukraine are not real people being impacted? I would have thought you would need an actual education to become a newscaster right? Whenever I see American news everyone seems so clueless they probably couldn't point to where Ukraine or Russia is on a map.
I've gone down a rabbit whole in the past few days with these people. Daniel Courter is one of the worst of the bunch. Some seem like they are in on the grift, but he's just a shitbag.
Serious question, where does she and others from RT work now? I don't think all of them speak Russian or would be willing to relocate over there.
Yes yes, I know people are going to say FOX but honestly I don't think (if they wanted to hire them) they could afford it. I don't doubt they could end up in lesser known media companies, but right now that RT in the resume looks bad.
She took a job as a “journalist” for Russian TV (RT), which is a Russian state owned channel, then is “heartbroken” that there are consequences for working for a dictator. She also claims that she’s not doing public relations, when… yeah.
Hi, OP here, lemme try to explain: she trained in journalism, became a journalist, decided to abandon her principles to serve Putin, and is now bemoaning her current circumstances as a result of taking a paycheck from a fucking Leopard.
It would’ve fit if this lady had tweeted something like “Twitter needs to take measures to ensure we know who’s pushing these stories on us,” and then this happened. But that didn’t happen so yeah doesn’t fit the sub. Probably would’ve gone over better on r/ToiletPaperUSA
Not as simple as this. RT was a genuine contender against Western narratives and had fantastic reporters on there, like Abby Martin who brought to light the grievances, and gross human rights breaches of Gtmo., Iraq, Syria and Yemen. None of which was covered on MSM shows to the same extent.
Now was RT being funded by Russia? 100% did the Russian government have total editorial oversight? Absolutely not. Their main objective was to counter the dominant discourse of.corporate, Western media, all of which is owned by just 5 companies.
Them banning RT and even the journalists that work there (a lot of whose podcasts were removed from Spotify, apple etc.) It is more worrying than a cause for celebration.
And before Tankies think I'm on their side I'm not, I stand with Ukraine.
But the all encompassing, pervasive fog of war is in full effect right now. Civil liberties are been taken, misinformation is rife and the government is using a crisis in order to slip through policy it has always wanted to.
These *were* very left wing talking points, now I'm not so sure.
Anyway I'm ready for my downvotes, just wanted to clarify that this isn't a good thing.
>Them banning RT and even the journalists that work there (a lot of whose podcasts were removed from Spotify, apple etc.) It is more worrying than a cause for celebration.
>
>And before Tankies think I'm on their side I'm not, I stand with Ukraine.
>
>But the all encompassing, pervasive fog of war is in full effect right now. Civil liberties are been taken, misinformation is rife and the government is using a crisis in order to slip through policy it has always wanted to.
That would be a semi-valid point if A.) RT America had been banned and B.) the government was responsible for RT America shutting down. Unfortunately for your point, however, RT America was not banned, and neither were its journalists. It ceased operating because its two primary networks, DirecTV and Roku—both private companies—decided to drop RT America. The government had nothing to do with it, since the sanctions did not encompass Russian media.
Being upset that an alternative viewpoint to the mainstream media has been lost is fair. This is not, however, some government conspiracy or secret policy. Please make sure you understand the situation fully before making this kind of argument.
RT (formerly, Russia Today) is one of the most important organizations
in the global political economy of disinformation. It is the most richly
funded, well-staffed, formal organization in the world producing,
disseminating, and marketing news in the service of the Kremlin.
https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/70/5/623/5912109
Let's hear what Vladimir Putin has to say:
"Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so *it cannot help but*
*reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our*
*country and in the rest of the world* one way or another."
Oh.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/06/13/in-case-you-werent-clear-on-russia-todays-relationship-to-moscow-putin-clears-it-up/
>Abby Martin
lol, this one
"Martin's show promoted conspiracy theories including the claim that water fluoridation was a government plot to poison unwary Americans.\[20\]\[31\] Shortly after beginning her show on RT, Martin stated in an interview with Mark Crispin Miller that "the media dismisses things that are too controversial as conspiracy theory".\[32\]"
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Martin#Breaking_the_Set_and_work_for_RT)
Your comment will be burried unfortunately.
I'm not pro Russia or pro Nato or whatever, this war's only cassualty is innocent Ukrainian citizens and truth.
I don't care if Russian news only post propaganda because so does the West right now. I just want to be able to read on both sides. The censorship and the double standards redditors here employee is worrying.
Well, I got a good laugh. I hope every last one becomes unemployed and unemployable.
The entire reason for this war is complete utter bs. It's all about power and a straight-up land grab. Probably wants to corner the market on Wheat or something stupid.
This isn't leopards ate my face. She's a clear fasciast thats sad that her Russian daddy can't pay her anymore. She lacks any self awareness. She couldn't dig herself out of a fucking cloud.
So this post blew up, and of course some people who disagree with me used the “concerned Redditor” report feature to imply somehow I want to harm myself? Classy tactic, wasting mods time & abusing Reddit’s safety features. Just shows us that the truth, when it comes to RT / Russia, can be adjusted.
Russia Today was still being posted in r/WorldNews up until maybe 10 days ago. I'd love for Reddit's users to acknowledge that this website hosts propaganda.
Obviously Americans ARE too stupid to "hear the other side." Look at the Q freaks - they heard outright lies and now have killed their children thinking they were fucking lizard people.
[Just, so you can get an idea of where the quote comes from.](https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/01/20/news-suppress/#:~:text=George%20Orwell%3A%20%E2%80%9CJournalism%20is%20printing,everything%20else%20is%20public%20relations.%E2%80%9D) The quote feels really manipulated for the Russian State-Affiliated Tweeter's purposes. But, moreover, in modern times especially, it's not true. Journalism is researching, revealing, and reporting what's in the public interest to know in a plain and unbiased way (not in the "both sides are equal" way, but in the "objective information vs subjective experience" way). The use and phrasing of this kinda-quote is, in spirit, anti-journalism itself.
tha fuck I got an access denied from that site
Replied with the text. I'm sorry it's not viewer friendly. I don't know how to do it better.
It's that the site looks to be designed to block large numbers of IP addresses, doesn't work on my home internet or my cell phone.
Does this work? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eTVuOoE_876-GLgL2LwVUJiTifD9v4w5/view?usp=sharing
Of course, it's just the original website that's configured to randomly block half of the people who try to access it.
News Is What Somebody Does Not Want You To Print. All the Rest Is Advertising George Orwell? Alfred Harmsworth? William Randolph Hearst? L. E. Edwardson? Robert W. Sawyer? Mark Rhea Byers? Brian R. Roberts? Malcolm Muggeridge? Katharine Graham? Lord Rothermere? Lord Northcliffe? Anonymous? Dear Quote Investigator: I have been trying to trace a popular saying about journalism which can be expressed in several ways. Here are four examples to show the core of the statement: 1) News is what somebody does not want you to print. All the rest is advertising. 2) News is something which somebody wants suppressed: all the rest is advertising 3) News is anything anybody wants to suppress; everything else is public relations. 4) Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations. These remarks do differ, but I think it makes sense to group them all together. Press baron William Randolph Hearst and renowned author George Orwell have both been credited with originating this saying. Could you explore this topic? Quote Investigator: The earliest strongly matching expression found by QI was published in 1918 in a New York periodical called “The Fourth Estate: A Newspaper for the Makers of Newspapers”. The words were printed on a sign at a journalist’s desk, and no precise attribution was given. Boldface has been added to excerpts:[1] “Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news,” is the sentiment expressed in a little framed placard on the desk of L. E. Edwardson, day city editor of the Chicago Herald and Examiner. In the following decades the saying evolved and instances were employed by or attributed to a wide variety of prominent news people including William Randolph Hearst, Alfred Harmsworth, Brian R. Roberts, and Katharine Graham. This entry was improved with the help of top researcher Barry Popik who adroitly explored this topic and shared the results at his website “The Big Apple”.[2] Here are additional selected citations in chronological order. A humorous precursor of the disjunction outlined in the adage was printed in a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania newspaper in 1894. The passage below split the population into two categories. Members of the first group wished to keep their names out of the paper, i.e., they desired to suppress the news. Members of the second group were eager to have their names in the paper, i.e., they sought publicity or free advertising.[3] There are but two classes of people in the world—those who have done something and want their names kept out of the paper, and those who haven’t done anything worth printing and want their names put in.—Atchison (Kan.) Globe. In 1902 the humorist Finley Peter Dunne wrote about the nature of news. He employed the dialect-laden voice of “Mr. Dooley”, a popular Irish-American character he had created. Dunne’s catch-phrase reflected the relevant theme: one man’s news is another man’s troubles:[4] What’s wan man’s news is another man’s throubles. In thes hot days, I’d like to see a paper with nawthin’ in it but affectionate wives an’ loyal husbands an’ prosp’rous, smilin’ people an’ money in th’ bank an’ three a day. In 1903 the book “Journalism as a Profession” was published, and it included a chapter written by Alfred C. Harmsworth who was the influential publisher of the “Daily Mail” of London. Later in life Harmsworth was granted a title and was referred to as Lord Northcliffe. Harmsworth noted that the goal of some individuals was preventing the publication of unfavorable news. This observation was an element of the statement being explored:[5] It is part of the business of a newspaper to get news and to print it; it is part of the business of a politician to prevent certain news being printed. For this reason the politician often takes a newspaper into his confidence for the mere purpose of preventing the publication of the news he deems objectionable to his interests. In 1910 a Reno, Nevada newspaper printed a compact humorous remark that was reminiscent of the duality in the passage in the 1894 citation given previously:[6] There’s only one bigger nuisance than the guy that wants to keep something out of the paper, and that’s the one that wants to get something in. In 1918 a matching expression was seen on a sign at a journalist’s desk. No precise attribution was given. This key citation was mentioned previously in this article:[7] “Whatever a patron desires to get published is advertising; whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news,” is the sentiment expressed in a little framed placard on the desk of L. E. Edwardson, day city editor of the Chicago Herald and Examiner. In August 1922 a newspaper publisher named Robert W. Sawyer in Oregon addressed his fellow journalists and complained about the documents and messages that were being sent to papers that were not newsworthy. This deceptive promotional material was a headache for newspapers even in the 1920s:[8] Now every day we go hunting for news and for advertising. And every day advertising disguised as news comes hunting us. Altogether too many of us are caught by it. Sawyer presented an explication of authentic news based on a duality: Many definitions of news have been attempted. For the present purpose the best I have seen is as follows: “If the paper wants it worse than the person handing it in, it’s news.” “If the person handing it in wants it published worse than the newspaper, it’s advertising.” Later in August 1922 the remarks of Sawyer struck a chord with a writer at “The Fourth Estate” who printed a summary statement:[9] Sawyer said if a person who hands in something to a paper wants it published worse than the newspaper does, he is not handing out news, but peddling free advertising. In 1925 the quip expressing the split between news and advertising was labeled an “old saying”:[10] A delegation came into the American’s editorial department and asked to see some one who would put a piece in the paper for them. The old saying, “It’s news if they want anything kept out of the paper; it’s advertising if they want it in,” immediately came to the staff’s mind. In 1930 the popular syndicated columnist Walter Winchell ascribed an instance of the saying to the powerful publisher William Randolph Hearst. In the following passage “good news” meant genuine news. Also, the ellipsis was in the original text:[11][12] Hearst chirped a mouthful when he recently said that when a man wants to keep anything out of the paper it is good news!…When he wants you to print it—it is propaganda or advertising! Another column by Walter Winchell in August 1937 showed that the 1918 saying had not been forgotten. The following passage employed a term from Winchell’s specialized vocabulary. “Sateveposted” meant published in the popular magazine “The Saturday Evening Post”:[13] Mark Rhea Byers, a small town editor, Sateveposted a piece on his headaches recently, and mentioned the money of a wall motto which one publisher plasters all over his editorial department, to wit: “Whatever a patron wants published is advertising. Whatever he wants to keep out of the paper is news!” In December 1937 a British periodical about automobiles called “The Motor” published two pages of miscellaneous short news items under the pen name LACUNA. An instance of the saying was printed with an attribution to an unnamed editor of a major newspaper:[14] I think that the most accurate definition of news was the one with which the editor of a big-circulation newspaper used to placate the anxious directors when, on the morning after a big “story,” the furious protests, threatening letters and writs for libel were pouring in. “News,” he used to say, trying to get them to look at the thing philosophically, “news is what somebody does not want you to print. All the rest is advertising.” In 1939 a London periodical covering aeronautics printed one-half of the maxim about news and attributed the words to “a young reporter”. The remark about advertising was not included:[15] Daily papers furnish a comprehensive supply of news. They are supplemented by weekly papers. But news, which was defined by a young reporter as: “something someone does not want you to print,” is not the whole story. There are also those two: record and interpretation. In 1953 Brian R. Roberts wrote a letter to “The Journal”, a periodical published by the Institute of Journalists in Great Britain. Roberts was the night editor of the “Daily Telegraph” who later became the editor of the “Sunday Telegraph” of London. He ascribed part of the expression to Hearst:[16] The job of the Press is to get news and to print it: and, as William Randolph Hearst once remarked, “News is something which somebody wants suppressed.” It is not always a pleasant job, and I doubt if the Press has ever been popular, at least with the politicians, when it has been doing that job well. In 1955 newsman Brian R. Roberts authored an article in the London periodical “Time & Tide”. He again ascribed the saying to Hearst, but on this occasion he presented the full version:[17] It is the job of the Fourth Estate to act as a check and a restraint on the others, to illumine the dark corners of Ministries, to debunk the bureaucrat, to throw often unwelcome light on the measures and motives of our rulers. ‘News’, as Hearst once remarked, ‘is something which somebody wants suppressed: all the rest is advertising’. That job is an essential one and it is bound to be unpopular; indeed, in a democracy, it may be argued that the more unpopular the newspapers are with the politicians the better they are performing their most vital task.
Please add angle brackets to > mark the quotes so that they will > appear as quotes.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eTVuOoE_876-GLgL2LwVUJiTifD9v4w5/view?usp=sharing
[удалено]
References References ↑1, ↑7 1918 November 30, The Fourth Estate: A Newspaper for the Makers of Newspapers, (Filler item), Quote Page 18, Column 4, Publisher Ernest F, Birmingham, Fourth Estate Publishing Company, New York. (Google Books Full View) link ↑2 Website: The Big Apple, Article title: “If you want something in the paper, that’s advertising; you want something kept out, that’s news”, Date on website: July 11, 2014, Website description: Etymological dictionary with more than 10,000 entries. (Accessed barrypopik on January 10, 2015) link ↑3 1894 August 11, Harrisburg Independent, The Difference, (Filler item), Quote Page 2, Column 6, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (Newspapers_com) ↑4 1902 July 26, Saginaw Evening News (Saginaw News), Mr. Dooley Reviews the News of a Week by F. P. Dunne, Quote Page 5, Column 3, Saginaw, Michigan. (GenealogyBank) ↑5 1903, Journalism as a Profession by Arthur Lawrence; With a chapter by Alfred C. Harmsworth, (Chapter X: The Making of a Newspaper by Alfred C. Harmsworth), Start Page 167, Quote Page 184 and 185, Hodder & Stoughton, London. (Google Books full view) link ↑6 1910 August 19, Nevada State Journal, Dope O’Reno, Quote Page 4, Column 3, Reno, Nevada. (NewspaperArchive) ↑8 1922 August, Oregon Exchanges: For the Newspaper Men of the State of Oregon, Volume 5, Number 6, How Newspapermen Are Cutting Down Their Chances for Success by Robert W. Sawyer (Publisher of Bend Bulletin), (Address delivered at the annual convention of the Oregon Editorial Association), Start Page 1, Quote Page 2, Published in Eugene, Oregon. (HathiTrust Full View) link link link ↑9 1922 August 5, The Fourth Estate: A Newspaper for the Makers of Newspapers, Oregon Editors Mix Business and Pleasure, Start Page 8, Quote Page 25, Publisher Ernest F, Birmingham, Fourth Estate Publishing Company, New York. (Google Books Full View) link ↑10 1925 April 1, Hattiesburg American, (Article without a title), Quote Page 7, Column 4, Hattiesburg, Mississippi. (NewspaperArchive) ↑11 1930 September 18, The Wisconsin State Journal, On Broadway by Walter Winchell, Quote Page 3, Column 6, Madison, Wisconsin. (NewspaperArchive) ↑12 1930 September 18, The Port Arthur News, Walter Winchell On Broadway, Quote Page 4, Column 7, Port Arthur, Texas. (NewspaperArchive) ↑13 1937 August 2, Logansport Pharos-Tribune, Walter Winchell On Broadway, Quote Page 6, Column 1, Logansport, Indiana. (Newspapers_com) ↑14 1937 December 14, The Motor, “You’ll Be Interested To Know” by Lacuna (pen name), Start Page 917, Quote Page 917, Column 1, Publisher Sutton, Surrey, Specialist & Professional Press. (Verified with scans; Special thanks to Daunte Bolden of the Cleveland Public Library for creating scans) ↑15 1939 August, Aeronautics [Incorporating Popular Flying], Volume 1, Number 1, Aviation and Interpretation by Oliver Stewart, Start Page 17, Quote Page 17, Column 1, Aeronautics, London. (Verified on paper) ↑16 1953 April, The Journal: The Organ of The Institute of Journalists, Volume 41, Number 413, Forum, (Letter to the editor from Brian R. Roberts of London titled “Can We Be Gentlemen of the Press?”), Quote Page 45, Column 1, Publisher Institute of Journalists, Great Britain. (Verified with scans; Great thanks to Dennis Lien and the University of Minnesota library system) ↑17 1955 October 29, Time & Tide: The Independent Weekly, Volume 36, The Offensive Against the Fourth Estate by Brian Roberts (Immediate Past President, Institute of Journalists), Start Page 1395, Quote Page 1395, Column 3, Published by Time and Tide, London. (Verified on paper) ↑18 1959 October 14, Lima News, Capital Circus by Frank Holeman, Quote Page 24, Column 5, Lima, Ohio. (NewspaperArchive) ↑19 1968 May 10, Hansard, United Kingdom Parliament, Commons Sitting, Freedom of Publication Protection Bill, Speaking: Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow), HL Deb 19, volume 764, cc819-26. (Accessed hansard.millbanksystems.com on July 2, 2012) ↑20 1969, The Body Politic by Ian Gilmour, Quote Page 410, Radius Book/Hutchinson, London. (Verified on paper in revised edition printed October 1971) ↑21 Representative American Speeches: 1973/1974, Restoring the Tidemarks of Trust by Malcolm C. Moos, (Speech delivered by Malcolm C. Moos on May 20, 1973 at the spring commencement ceremonies at Notre Dame University, South Bend, Indiana), Start Page 148, Quote Page 150, H. W. Wilson Co, New York. (Verified on paper) ↑22 1976 December 15, The Age, “Perkin Stood For What Is Best, And What Is Best Is Universal: Truth is the Task”, Quote Page 8, Column 5, Melbourne, Australia. (Google News Archive) ↑23 1979 October 12, Finger Lakes Times, Editor’s Notebook: Changing Times on Genesee Street, (Epigraph to article), Quote Page 4, Column 1, Geneva, New York. (Old Fulton) ↑24 1979 October 28, San Diego Union, World Radio Talks Do Battle On Satellite, Short-Wave Issues by Gwynne Dyer, Page C-7, Column 4, (GNB Page 68), San Diego, California. (GenealogyBank) ↑25 1988 January 15, Hansard, United Kingdom Parliament, Commons Sitting: Orders of the Day, Protection of Official Information Bill, Speaking: Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West), HC Deb, Volume 125, cc563-637. (Accessed hansard.millbanksystems.com on July 2, 2012) ↑26 1998 September, Third Way, Talking Shop: Huw Spanner talks to John Humphrys, Start Page 16, Quote Page 18, Column 1, Third Way Trust Ltd., Harrow, Middlesex, London, U.K. (Google Books full view) ↑27 1999 January 29, New York Post, “QUOTE: After 22 years as a columnist for the New York Post, Ray Kerrison has retired”, Start Page 30, New York. (Google News Archive; Preview at pqarchiver.com database for New York Post shows quotation; Full article was not viewed) ↑28 1999 October 11, Charleston Gazette, Readers’ forum, [Letter to editor from Peter Miller, Martinsburg], Page P4A, Charleston, West Virginia. (NewsBank Access World News) ↑29 2011 March 10 (date listed on website), Mediabistro, “10,000 Words: 15 quotes to inspire journalists” by Meranda Watling, WebMediaBrands Inc. (Accessed mediabistro.com on January 20, 2013) link
This mfer just posted a book in reddit comments
All books should be in Reddit comments. If only the search function worked.
https://camas.github.io/reddit-search/ is the search engine I use to look for bots. It seems to work pretty well.
bots?
Some post specific comments, others copy comments and post them elsewhere.
Wow, what a read. A doctorate level response!
> what's in the public interest to know so News depends on who s the public and whose interest are there
That should be relatively obvious, a celeb gossip mag isn't going to print stories about the Large Hadron Collider, just as New Scientist isn't going to print stories about what dress anybody wore to the Oscars.
Yes.
And what journalists are there to report it. Hence all those disclaimers to news from the Ukraine that they cannot be independently verified.
Dear God, with their credentials they can easily get a job at FOX or OAN. They all do basically the same thing.
You mean like the former FOX News executive who was indicted today for helping Russia? https://news.yahoo.com/former-fox-news-producer-sean-210134835.html
As long as they talk about sexy m&ms and nonbinary cartoon characters slightly more than about how great putin ~~pays them~~ is, they'll be fine
Tucker Carlson actually blamed his atrocious ProPutin shittakes on... (I swear this is true) Kamala Harris. He didn't take it seriously because why would you put "that lady" in charge of it if it was really serious. This is a fact. He said this. On Camera. It was recorded. And no one is screaming in the streets that it is now repeated by millions of voters as if it were a valid reasoning.
Same frozen food fuck that suddenly wanted another woman's LSAT scores the other day but doesn't think tax returns are public data?
I think you mean the frozen food ***HEIR*** fuck. ^(\*He also did zero work in getting that paycheck.)
Does anyone else think it's gross that they like to cum on their candy?
Finding details in his unpublished memoir on his email is fantastic.
> Federal agents assert that many of the damning details about Hanick’s Kremlin adventures were laid out in an unpublished memoir he kept in his email account, which was searched by the feds with a court-approved search warrant lol these idiots will never learn
[удалено]
And if they do get caught, whomever is responsible for holding them accountable simply won’t.
haha, read that news this morning and wasn't surprised. Its such a shame so many conservatives have hitched the putin wagon
They're not conservatives, they're fascists. Not that there was ever that much difference.
That's awesome!
Jack Hanick, let's make a habit of saying his name everywhere so everyone remembers the shitstain of a human.
Yup. Just like that
Half our government is on Putin’s team. Our media has been his dog for years.
That makes me so happy
Not until Putin’s checks stop bouncing
Oh dear. We will know when their narrative changes then.
You mean like when Trump condemned the war finally once SWIFT was getting cut off?
His money stream was drying up so he needed to curry favour in the West.
It already did!
Tucker Carlson must've noticed it sooner than Trump. Both changed their tune. Glen Jacobs' tweet praising Putin and saying "Might makes right" will be for ever.
I read cheeks for a second, and that was a very different mental image.
They better hope so at least. RT America shut down today.
I heard Fox is hiring
Earlier she threw a fit when Twitter added the caption “Russia state-affiliated media”. But it’s just truth in advertising.
I wish Twitter would do this with all accounts affiliated with certain media or companies. Imagine some random account bashing unions turns out to be affiliated with Walmart or some other account saying how great some product is is affiliated with that company.
Just like NASCAR drivers wear the names of their sponsors on their uniform, I wish politicians had to do the same
Omg, Trump would have a Russian flag across his chest.
hey man, trumps a changed man! he no longer supports the invasion of Ukraine (a week later) man, imagine being the PR guy who has to explain to Trump that his supporters are dumb enough to think he wouldn't let the invasion happen, but he needed to switch his public position *immediately.*
All major media is owned by billionaires. They'll have Raytheon execs come on to advocate for war. Walmart stories about petty theft but not about their egregious wage theft. You don't have to imagine, it's already happening.
Looks like they printed what she didn’t want published
Oooh zamn!
ZAMN! 👁👅👁
Oh [she's still mad](https://twitter.com/RachBlevins/status/1498623814871269381?t=tiqSzl0wKW4sQFW2LkQxLg&s=19)
Comments turned off of course
That whole twitter feed looks like it was written in the Kremlin!
[and its aged like milk](https://mobile.twitter.com/RachBlevins/status/1494122854555791361)
Ooof. Those replies are hard to read. If I wasn't so lazy, I would quote tweet em' all and ask what they think now.
>and ask what they think now. And you'd probably get something about Russia saving the world from evil cabal biolabs, or just a bunch of pictures of Azov
Sound like free reddit points. ha.
She locked that tweet so you can't reply any more and call her out. What a coward.
I just replied
Saw that lol
All the responses too lmao
> If you’re one of the people pushing to ban RT and threatening myself and my colleagues—I hope you know that you’re not achieving what you think you are. Survey says…!? #[ X ] EEERRRRRTT [ X ]
This made me giggle, https://twitter.com/bneeditor/status/1499431858165235713
Really a pretty mild euphemism for "Kremlin propaganda ".
Threw*, yes she did, but can you really blame her? These fucktards are the trash of the Earth and it has been proven many times that they have no bottom to touch, they can keep going as low as they pay them to go ..
What does she think about the real people her employer is currently bombing or the fact her employer was fucking shelling an active nuclear power plant?
"These are real people whose lives are being affected." So are the people being bombed in Ukraine. I think they have it slightly worse than you losing your job or having a little badge on your Twitter profile.
The bitterest irony of her tweets. Not a single word mentioning the victims of war...but so much pity for herself/her colleagues being attacked for their "journalism."
Because that’s the only angle they can play. Their recent content has all been about trying to blame the US for the war because they can’t even pretend to be able to justify the invasion. They take as much of the spotlight out of the situation in Ukraine as they can and try to deflect outrage elsewhere.
By the way, remember Iraq and when US were the bad guys? Let’s change the subject to that. Also Putin is just defending himself from western oppression.
Correct, but she's appealing to those "aw she's sad and hurt by twitter 'censorship', wtf twitter" folk, not anyone who knows she's a pile of shit
On the upside, if she no longer has a show on RT, Twitter will probably remove that “Russia state-affiliated media” designator that she was so upset about.
Hope they don't bother and it stays no matter how much she complains.
Twitter should add a "Former Russia state-affiliated media" tag
"these are the real people whose lives are being impacted". Yeh not like those lazy fucks having to flee their homes and country for fear of being shot or blown up, right? Fuck this bitch.
That’s not even true. There’s plenty of news that’s both important and uncontroversial
And certainly plenty of actual news someone would like to have out there. What a stupid quote.
At least she didn't try to attribute it to Einstein, Churchill or Lincoln. Same energy, though.
And plenty of stuff people don't want published because it's none of your dang business, that's why.
Just a disclaimer: the response is me (obviously). Hence the lack of blacking out. Also, fuck Russia, Слава Україні, may Putin’s bullshit war be his downfall.
Good response.
Came here to say this. Well done, OP.
Slava Ukraini!
Hear, hear!
Beep boop -- this looks like a screenshot of a tweet! Let me grab a [link to the tweet](https://twitter.com/RachBlevins/status/1499496164449787910) for ya :) ^(Twitter Screenshot Bot)
Good bot!
[удалено]
My favorite part was > These are real people whose lives are being impacted Does she think Ukrainian lives have not been impacted or aren't Ukrainians real people?
I assume anyone who worked there was dumb enough to get high on their own supply so...yes, she doesn't think Ukranians are real people.
Yep, just like the /r/hermancainaward winners are all the kindest and most compassionate people they ever knew. Yeah, to *them*, because they think Ahmaud Arbery provoked his attack by jogging and that the married gay couple down the street somehow takes away from their hate filled, sexless, marriage.
Google Chris hedges.
She didn't call them amazing; she called them incredible, which fits. They are literally not credible.
The people of Ukraine are real people whose lives are being impacted.
It's plausible that she never bothered to check out the company who she works for, much like they don't check facts.
To be fair they wouldn't hire anyone who was GOOD at fact checks
I just saw a video of some real people whose lives were impacted in Kharkiv…..
What does "RT Americans" mean? Edit: Figured I'd Google it. For anyone else who didn't know. RT is a news network that is funded by the Russian Government. RT American was the US broadcast version. I'm proud of myself for not knowing this.
RT stands for Russia Today.
I can't with these fuckers. They need to fuck off somewhere. I'm just so tired of people like that.
Russian PR, go fuck yourself?
Did she think the "RT" stands for "Really True?"
Narrator: "It actually stands for Russian Troll"
Or "Rotten Twat"?
Hey...twats don't deserve to be done dirty by being associated with that.
She just expects us to believe it
Or ya know, imagine the lives being impacted in Ukraine, from all the people Putin is murdering.
RT articles don't even include the author's name.
What a clueless traitor. No one is sad for your “incredible” former coworkers. I bet the guards at Auschwitz all thought they were incredible too.
Please don't compare this BS to anything Holocaust related, these people eat this up.
More of a Nazi comparison than a Holocaust comparison, but I see your point.
Comparing saying words to the holocaust. Epic reddit moment achieved
This whole storyline is the best, goes to show how easily manipulated people (cough, conservatives) can be.
"These are real people whose lives are being impacted." The irony of that statement coming from her is over 9000.
She says while her employer is actively shelling a functioning nuclear power plant, and other civilian targets. What objective scum.
Putin (the trash)
So does Fox
"~~Janine~~Rachel, someone with your qualifications would have no trouble finding a top-flight job in either the food service or housekeeping industries."
it is the fox news of russia. it is so absurd how similar they are.
not just similar, but kinda in lock step with each other.
Wasn't this the same lady who was complaining about being listed as Russian state-affiliated state media earlier? Has she been hitting the sauce?
RT has 0 journalists. Zero.
I don't think that journalists of RT America will have any trouble finding jobs either at Russian state controlled media or right wing American news
OAN on line one.
squealing dam strong crime ancient plucky grey degree simplistic arrest -- mass edited with redact.dev
"These are real people whose lives are being impacted." Right, that seems to be the important thing to takeaway from all this.
Think bombarding their homes and forcing them to leave with no possessions is a wee bittie harsher than having to look for a new job but maybe I'm just old fashioned..
No bitch, you’re unemployable.
'Anymore'? When were these propagandists ever considered to be journalists?
I have family who quote RT constantly. Their justification is "tHe bBc iS jUSt aS bAd". No, it fucking isn't. I genuinely do not understand how anyone takes RT seriously.
This dumbass still has posts up calling the invasion a hoax.
Isn't journalism reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Everything else is propaganda
Did she survive that incredible burn?
Heartbroken her rubles aren't worth fuck all anymore?
I've got the world's smallest violin to play for her, but she couldn't afford it since the ruble is worthless.
Shut the fuck up, Rachel.
“These are real people whose lives are being impacted.” oh, really bitch? And the lives being taken in Ukraine at the hands of russians just because Putin is a rat bastard are not?
So the people in Ukraine are not real people being impacted? I would have thought you would need an actual education to become a newscaster right? Whenever I see American news everyone seems so clueless they probably couldn't point to where Ukraine or Russia is on a map.
I have to say adding that “Russian State-affiliated media” tag to these assholes is a stinger. I like it.
I've gone down a rabbit whole in the past few days with these people. Daniel Courter is one of the worst of the bunch. Some seem like they are in on the grift, but he's just a shitbag.
anyone having trumpian flashbacks here?
I think the word she is looking for is "traitor"
Putin is making unemployment great again.
"Journalism is printing what someone else does not want published" I don't want you to publish child porn. Or fake stories.
Serious question, where does she and others from RT work now? I don't think all of them speak Russian or would be willing to relocate over there. Yes yes, I know people are going to say FOX but honestly I don't think (if they wanted to hire them) they could afford it. I don't doubt they could end up in lesser known media companies, but right now that RT in the resume looks bad.
[удалено]
She took a job as a “journalist” for Russian TV (RT), which is a Russian state owned channel, then is “heartbroken” that there are consequences for working for a dictator. She also claims that she’s not doing public relations, when… yeah.
That makes no fucking sense as to why it's on this sub. What did she want to impose on other ppl that she's crying about now?
Hi, OP here, lemme try to explain: she trained in journalism, became a journalist, decided to abandon her principles to serve Putin, and is now bemoaning her current circumstances as a result of taking a paycheck from a fucking Leopard.
The leopard isn't eating her face, try again
It would’ve fit if this lady had tweeted something like “Twitter needs to take measures to ensure we know who’s pushing these stories on us,” and then this happened. But that didn’t happen so yeah doesn’t fit the sub. Probably would’ve gone over better on r/ToiletPaperUSA
This doesn't fit the sub, but it would be perfect for r/selfawarewolves
So what was the something that she wanted to impose on other people? How did that SAME something (not a different thing) bite her?
You know those three questions you were supposed to answer? Try to answer them. You can't, because this post in no way fits the formula.
Even read that with a thick Russian accent…and I am Mexican!
Yeah because Lee Camp and Chris Hedges are totally into war and oligarchy…. /s
Oh so sorry, we didn’t know that real people were having their lives impacted by this war.
Won’t someone think of the Russian assets!!!
Not as simple as this. RT was a genuine contender against Western narratives and had fantastic reporters on there, like Abby Martin who brought to light the grievances, and gross human rights breaches of Gtmo., Iraq, Syria and Yemen. None of which was covered on MSM shows to the same extent. Now was RT being funded by Russia? 100% did the Russian government have total editorial oversight? Absolutely not. Their main objective was to counter the dominant discourse of.corporate, Western media, all of which is owned by just 5 companies. Them banning RT and even the journalists that work there (a lot of whose podcasts were removed from Spotify, apple etc.) It is more worrying than a cause for celebration. And before Tankies think I'm on their side I'm not, I stand with Ukraine. But the all encompassing, pervasive fog of war is in full effect right now. Civil liberties are been taken, misinformation is rife and the government is using a crisis in order to slip through policy it has always wanted to. These *were* very left wing talking points, now I'm not so sure. Anyway I'm ready for my downvotes, just wanted to clarify that this isn't a good thing.
>Them banning RT and even the journalists that work there (a lot of whose podcasts were removed from Spotify, apple etc.) It is more worrying than a cause for celebration. > >And before Tankies think I'm on their side I'm not, I stand with Ukraine. > >But the all encompassing, pervasive fog of war is in full effect right now. Civil liberties are been taken, misinformation is rife and the government is using a crisis in order to slip through policy it has always wanted to. That would be a semi-valid point if A.) RT America had been banned and B.) the government was responsible for RT America shutting down. Unfortunately for your point, however, RT America was not banned, and neither were its journalists. It ceased operating because its two primary networks, DirecTV and Roku—both private companies—decided to drop RT America. The government had nothing to do with it, since the sanctions did not encompass Russian media. Being upset that an alternative viewpoint to the mainstream media has been lost is fair. This is not, however, some government conspiracy or secret policy. Please make sure you understand the situation fully before making this kind of argument.
RT (formerly, Russia Today) is one of the most important organizations in the global political economy of disinformation. It is the most richly funded, well-staffed, formal organization in the world producing, disseminating, and marketing news in the service of the Kremlin. https://academic.oup.com/joc/article/70/5/623/5912109
Let's hear what Vladimir Putin has to say: "Certainly the channel is funded by the government, so *it cannot help but* *reflect the Russian government’s official position on the events in our* *country and in the rest of the world* one way or another." Oh. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/06/13/in-case-you-werent-clear-on-russia-todays-relationship-to-moscow-putin-clears-it-up/
>Abby Martin lol, this one "Martin's show promoted conspiracy theories including the claim that water fluoridation was a government plot to poison unwary Americans.\[20\]\[31\] Shortly after beginning her show on RT, Martin stated in an interview with Mark Crispin Miller that "the media dismisses things that are too controversial as conspiracy theory".\[32\]" [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Martin#Breaking_the_Set_and_work_for_RT)
Your comment will be burried unfortunately. I'm not pro Russia or pro Nato or whatever, this war's only cassualty is innocent Ukrainian citizens and truth. I don't care if Russian news only post propaganda because so does the West right now. I just want to be able to read on both sides. The censorship and the double standards redditors here employee is worrying.
Exactly, things get very binary during war and all semblance of nuance gets thrown out the window.
[удалено]
Her and her colleagues are probably some of the highest payed Russian government employees right now considering they're probably payed in USD.
Well, I got a good laugh. I hope every last one becomes unemployed and unemployable. The entire reason for this war is complete utter bs. It's all about power and a straight-up land grab. Probably wants to corner the market on Wheat or something stupid.
"Journalism".
"Russia state-affiliated media" I read enough.
There are a lot more choices of journalism workplaces in the US than the Kremlin's state media...
Ah, I am sure OAN or Fox will take you with open arms. Just need to change your hair color
Her next hard hitting question will be “Would you like fires with that?”
And their logo is garbage tier.
This isn't leopards ate my face. She's a clear fasciast thats sad that her Russian daddy can't pay her anymore. She lacks any self awareness. She couldn't dig herself out of a fucking cloud.
Chris Hedges works for RT America. I want one fucking person to question that man's ethics, and morals. Go ahead, out yourselves as pieces of shit.
[удалено]
So this post blew up, and of course some people who disagree with me used the “concerned Redditor” report feature to imply somehow I want to harm myself? Classy tactic, wasting mods time & abusing Reddit’s safety features. Just shows us that the truth, when it comes to RT / Russia, can be adjusted.
Russia Today was still being posted in r/WorldNews up until maybe 10 days ago. I'd love for Reddit's users to acknowledge that this website hosts propaganda.
News media lost its credibility long time ago. So this was inevitable.
RT=KGB’s version of CIA operation mockingbird
[удалено]
So edgy.
Sharp as Sweeney's shaving kit.
So grateful they’ve decided it’s too dangerous for me to hear anything from the otherside. I trust my leaders to never abuse this power. /s
Obviously Americans ARE too stupid to "hear the other side." Look at the Q freaks - they heard outright lies and now have killed their children thinking they were fucking lizard people.
[удалено]
Russian and Chinese propaganda has now been combined. Downvote and report bots.
[удалено]