Any Questions?
Published in Vzgliad Daily
(Russia) on 3 March 2011
by Margarita Symonyan (link to original)
(Russia) on 3 March 2011
by Margarita Symonyan (link to original)
Translated from
by Philippa Horton.
Edited by Nathan Ladd.
Close to night, at the height of the dispute between the RT and U.S. State Department, we thought about Hilary Clinton. The State Department answered those journalists who turned to me for commentary, initially convinced that a normal country should not waste its budget on foreign broadcasting. "The Russians have opened up an English language network. I’ve seen it in a couple of countries and it’s quite instructive."
So, Hillary Clinton went to Congress asking for more money. In particular for foreign broadcasting. I note that today the United States spends around $800 million annually on foreign broadcasting. This does not take into consideration the most important channel, CNN International, feeding domestically through CNN. Why this domestic channel is continuing to feed externally (it does not generally broadcast to the United States) is an enigma. With a simple answer.
I somehow think that in today's world, not to have foreign broadcasting is like not having a ministry of defense. Clinton seems to think so too. At the budget hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations in the U.S. Senate, she said that "We are in the information war. And we are losing this war, I'll be very frank in this assessment." And further: "During the Cold War, we did an excellent job in promoting the message out. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, we said: "Ok fine, enough of that, we've done it, we're done. Unfortunately, we are paying a bit of a price for it. Our private media cannot fill that gap."
Clinton openly recognizes that the Soviet losses in the cold war played a huge role in American propaganda! This is not "United Russia," nor a Channel One commentator, and not Putin, but the U.S. Secretary of State.
Concerning Twitter, Clinton urged young diplomats to make use of it, BUT also said: "Most people still get their news from TV and radio … I would look very much toward your cooperation to try to figure out how we get back in the game on this, because I hate ceding what we are most expert in to anybody else." And finally, my favorite: "The Russians have opened up an English language network. I’ve seen it in a couple of countries and it’s quite instructive."
This is the very channel a patriotic Russian journalist called it in an article an "obsolete megaphone.”
Here is the obsolete megaphone which the U.S. Secretary of State uses as an argument to persuade Congress to spend more money on improving its own legacy horns during a wild and uncertain budgetary deficit. Come and conjecture – whether or not it is on the subject, Congress, or a Russian journalist.
Not withholding the views of some Americans readers, here is their commentary on her speech.
“I find that to find real information about what is happening in the world, as well as in our own country, I have to turn to foreign news: RT, Al-Jazeera, France 24, the BBC (to a lesser extent).”
"It's not that the U.S is not represented [in the media space], the fact is that it is too present, but so are fools. Fortunately there are guys like Max Kaiser (RT)."
Ad Notam: Max is our author and presenter.
“Putin owns RT, so what? Really, NPR does not have a deeply articulate point of view?"
"I strongly prefer RT and English Al-Jazeera local private media conglomerates. The American media seem to think that America is stupid."
“RT has much more credible commentators than the mainstream media here."
“I do not see any propaganda in RT, their coverage of North America is to the point.”
Of course there are also critics, and even, or especially, critics want to comment:
“You cannot rely that RT will provide an objective picture of Russia, or that Al Jazeera gives objective news on Qatar, but other than that they are far superior to the American mainstream media in almost everything."
As my husband says in such situations: "Any questions?”
So, Hillary Clinton went to Congress asking for more money. In particular for foreign broadcasting. I note that today the United States spends around $800 million annually on foreign broadcasting. This does not take into consideration the most important channel, CNN International, feeding domestically through CNN. Why this domestic channel is continuing to feed externally (it does not generally broadcast to the United States) is an enigma. With a simple answer.
I somehow think that in today's world, not to have foreign broadcasting is like not having a ministry of defense. Clinton seems to think so too. At the budget hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations in the U.S. Senate, she said that "We are in the information war. And we are losing this war, I'll be very frank in this assessment." And further: "During the Cold War, we did an excellent job in promoting the message out. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, we said: "Ok fine, enough of that, we've done it, we're done. Unfortunately, we are paying a bit of a price for it. Our private media cannot fill that gap."
Clinton openly recognizes that the Soviet losses in the cold war played a huge role in American propaganda! This is not "United Russia," nor a Channel One commentator, and not Putin, but the U.S. Secretary of State.
Concerning Twitter, Clinton urged young diplomats to make use of it, BUT also said: "Most people still get their news from TV and radio … I would look very much toward your cooperation to try to figure out how we get back in the game on this, because I hate ceding what we are most expert in to anybody else." And finally, my favorite: "The Russians have opened up an English language network. I’ve seen it in a couple of countries and it’s quite instructive."
This is the very channel a patriotic Russian journalist called it in an article an "obsolete megaphone.”
Here is the obsolete megaphone which the U.S. Secretary of State uses as an argument to persuade Congress to spend more money on improving its own legacy horns during a wild and uncertain budgetary deficit. Come and conjecture – whether or not it is on the subject, Congress, or a Russian journalist.
Not withholding the views of some Americans readers, here is their commentary on her speech.
“I find that to find real information about what is happening in the world, as well as in our own country, I have to turn to foreign news: RT, Al-Jazeera, France 24, the BBC (to a lesser extent).”
"It's not that the U.S is not represented [in the media space], the fact is that it is too present, but so are fools. Fortunately there are guys like Max Kaiser (RT)."
Ad Notam: Max is our author and presenter.
“Putin owns RT, so what? Really, NPR does not have a deeply articulate point of view?"
"I strongly prefer RT and English Al-Jazeera local private media conglomerates. The American media seem to think that America is stupid."
“RT has much more credible commentators than the mainstream media here."
“I do not see any propaganda in RT, their coverage of North America is to the point.”
Of course there are also critics, and even, or especially, critics want to comment:
“You cannot rely that RT will provide an objective picture of Russia, or that Al Jazeera gives objective news on Qatar, but other than that they are far superior to the American mainstream media in almost everything."
As my husband says in such situations: "Any questions?”
Next article![]( "Bring Over Democrats, Too")
