Articles:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-state-news-outlet-rt-thrives-on-youtube-facebook-1508808937
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/23/technology/youtube-russia-rt.html
RT has a large presence on YouTube with over 2.2 million subscribers, 2.1 billion views, and 4.5 million followers on Facebook. This Russian news organization openly bombarded Hillary’s reputation during the 2016 presidential election, drawing attention to the email incident, and make accusations, such as her having hidden ties with Islamic extremists, or being in very poor mental/physical condition. Twitter even reported that RT had spent almost 300 thousand dollars to “promote tweets to US users” (WS journal). YouTube recently removed RT from a list of channels that had premium advertisers, denying any political motives for doing so.
I don’t doubt that RT is a platform for propaganda, used by Russia to influence American politics. Social media has given RT free reign to spread whatever false information they desire, and because they aren’t violating any of the guidelines set forth by such media platforms, there is nothing that can be done to impede their influence.
I don’t think that RT should have to be penalized for trying to influence the American people through propaganda. Even though RT has gathered a large amount of views and subscribers, I know that YouTube subscribers aren’t invested in RT’s content; they don’t pay for their subscription. Also, I don’t think censoring RT would reflect good on America. Taking away a major freedom just because of Russian propaganda would be going overboard.
Optional questions
Has social media allowed for more false information to go around?
Does social media pose any benefits in American politics?
Do you think RT should have the freedom to spread false information to carry out their agenda? If not, where should the line be drawn when it comes to other countries influencing American Politics?
6 comments:
I think social media often create stories that are mostly unfiltered. It’s a form of propaganda undoubtedly and more often than not false information goes around. The media isn’t the best place to find the news because it’s difficult to tell how credible the source is. Especially in social media, I often block claims made on media or look it up myself because you can’t always trust what you read on the internet. So in a way, yes, social media allowed for more false information to go around. Although social media is not the most credible form of attaining news coverage, it certainly poses benefits in American politics in terms of attracting a large audience. Most people will look at the media and take their word for it. I personally have seen political wars on social media and it’s funny to me that people take things so literally. It obviously worked for Trump’s campaign so it’s definitely a good marketing strategy to attract followers. It’s easy, though, to make claims on media, but be silent on the air. So it’s a slippery slope. I think Russia can do whatever it wants to spread media. We shouldn’t interfere with them because it shouldn’t affect us what another country does. It should be expected that other countries hold certain biases that spread further when politics get involved. Let them be. However, I do see how letting radical news networks making blatant claims could affect us.
Social media makes both the spreading of information easier but, as a consequence, more inaccurate. It makes sense that a channel that essentially plays lip-service to Putin would approve a $300,000 budget for advertising in the US because they wanted to sabotage Clinton's campaign but it is impossible to claim that this was the harbinger for her campaign's downfall.
Also, if we consider what other channels were covering during the election, we would notice that Clinton's emails were a more prominent subject than that of her campaign message and speeches. It is entirely ridiculous to think that it was only the Russians who pushed this content; it was on every front page around the country just weeks before November 8th.
I firmly believe that RT has the right to publish whatever they want, nearly every mainstream news agency has pushed the narrative that the Russians colluded with Trump's campaign during the election but we have yet to see the substantial evidence they claim to have. In fact, as for colluding with the Russians, it is the other way around! According to a recent investigative report from The Hill, "Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided over the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.
But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI, in fact, had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009." It goes on to say how Mikerin was later discretely arrested in 2014 for racketeering and offering no-bid contracts for American companies in exchange for payments to his own offshore banking accounts.
The dishonesty from both sides is sickening, but their ability to deflect blame when accepting massive speaking fees gets closer to criminal.
Even if RT is spreading around false news and propaganda, they should not be penalized or censored. First of all, there is so much unfiltered, false information out there on the web and on social media outlets; if you start censoring one source such as RT, I believe it could become easy to justify censoring other sources also spreading "fake news". Also, if RT were to be blocked, where do you draw the line for this sort of censorship?
Secondly, I believe that because of the sheer amount of false information and information that is heavily biased that is available to us, it is our responsibility to be able to discern what is reliable information versus what isn't. All students should be taught to be able to search the reliability and credibility of certain sources so that we don't just believe anything on the web.
And as for your questions, I believe that social media is definitely a forum where false information goes around and thrives in because of the sheer amount of users on them. But as for social media's effects on American politics, as we saw in class, it is still fairly unclear to what extent it does or does not influence political participation and the political views of Americans.
One thing that I just read online was that Facebook is now not allowing their users to profit from fake news and violence. I believe this is a pretty good way to decrease the amount of false news on the web without really censoring news, since I'm sure there are many people who post these false and misleading information in order to gain views and ultimately earn money off of them.
I think that RT should not spread false information on social media. However, RT does have the right to speak freely and share his opinion on the media. With that said, it is important that we understand that the media is not completely accurate or trustworthy. Some things said are bias and/or incorrect; we need to keep this in mind as we use the internet for information. I think that people should not be censored as they have the right to freedom of speech, and that people need to become more educated on the reliability of sources.
Social media, as Nick stated, is an efficient way to spread news although it comes with many consequences. In the reading "How American Politics Went Insane," the author speaks a lot about the "middlemen" in politics. Through his ideas and opinion about these "middlemen" I have to agree that linkage institutions such as the media have not been fulfilling their "jobs" in the way they should and are therefore not helping American Politics. Linkage institutions are supposed to show candidate Interviews, election results etc., instead we are seeing politicians take to the media to share impulsive remarks and raise money outside of their political party. As Jonathan Rauch stated, this leads to disorganization and polarization as it does not allow the "middlemen" the control they need to organize the government. Thus, I have to agree that although social media allows the public instant access to nearly everything in American politics, it is a bit more disruptive to politics than it is beneficial.
Social media has definitely allowed for more false information to go around. Individuals are also prone to selective exposure where they choose to view information that matches their own political views or opinions. There are definitely benefits for American politics as the public’s issues and opinions can be voiced more easily and heard since social media serves as a linkage institution that transfers issues ranging from local to national onto the policy agenda of our government. RT definitely has the freedom to spread false information around by the First Amendment and I agree that RT should not have been penalized. I believe that YouTube's personal beliefs may have been in the way of freedom of expression for RT, although they may claim otherwise. Furthermore, false information is an issue, but a way around that is through the education of future generations where the public will be able to discern reliable information from false information.
Post a Comment