Inside China's audacious global propaganda campaign(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Inside China's audacious global propaganda campaign
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/dec/07/china-plan-for-global-media-dominance-propaganda-xi-jinping
58 comments
Outside of small scale independent journalists who are always at the risk of getting de-platformed, non-NATO/petrodollar-aligned foreign news are the only place I can find Americans talking about American stances like leftism (in the economic sense), anti-war, etc.
Yeah. The downside of this is that it gives countries like Russia an outlet to slip in pro-Russian propaganda through outlets that people come to trust based on their other reporting. There are basically two responses the US mainstream media could've taken to this - open up local platforms for those non-aligned views so that Russia can no longer leverage them, or use it to claim that non-approved views are just Russian propaganda - and they've gone with the latter.
Oh ya, I was perhaps vague but don't get me wrong, I would of course prefer that American discourses could happen on American platforms and even if RT is letting proper non-corporate-aligned journalism run unfettered, it's just a means to an end and we can't count of their altruism.
I think it's just the world responding with a higher profile countermeasure to a systemic problem that could be handled more 'naturally' but isn't.
I think it's just the world responding with a higher profile countermeasure to a systemic problem that could be handled more 'naturally' but isn't.
> Outside of small scale independent journalists who are always at the risk of getting de-platformed, non-NATO/petrodollar-aligned foreign news are the only place I can find Americans talking about American stances like leftism (in the economic sense), anti-war, etc.
The good news is that there are many opportunities in the U.S. and West: The New York Review of Books, London Review of Books, The Nation, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, Tom Paine, Democracy Now, and many more. The Guardian generally supports those positions too; Le Monde does, last I knew, as well as Der Spiegel. You could read that kind of thing all day and never run out of content.
The good news is that there are many opportunities in the U.S. and West: The New York Review of Books, London Review of Books, The Nation, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, Tom Paine, Democracy Now, and many more. The Guardian generally supports those positions too; Le Monde does, last I knew, as well as Der Spiegel. You could read that kind of thing all day and never run out of content.
Many of these are not actually economically leftist or antiwar, and the ones that were have moved toward more of a centrist neoliberal position in recent years.
There are unfortunately very few leftist outlets right now of any real quality. WSWS, Evonomics, and Current Affairs are among the few exceptions.
There are unfortunately very few leftist outlets right now of any real quality. WSWS, Evonomics, and Current Affairs are among the few exceptions.
> Many of these are not actually economically leftist or antiwar, and the ones that were have moved toward more of a centrist neoliberal position in recent years.
Which ones?
Which ones?
To be honest, I think I mixed up your comment with another person who mentioned several other sources including Daily Kos (which used to have a pretty good left presence that was almost completely driven off the site in 2016).
Some of the sources you cited are somewhat to the left, although I would characterize most of them as progressive left and not "leftist," which to me implies something like democratic socialism, syndicalism, libertarian socialism, or something even farther left. (That said, The Nation does have a front page article up from Chomsky! Good on them.)
After 2016, I noticed that many progressive outlets spent some time dipping their toes into neoliberalism -- lots of subtly pro-capitalist and pro-interventionist pieces, basically cheerleading the pre-2016 global order -- and as a result I tuned out from most of them. This may have changed? I revisited some of the names you mentioned and I don't see it so strongly anymore.
Some of the sources you cited are somewhat to the left, although I would characterize most of them as progressive left and not "leftist," which to me implies something like democratic socialism, syndicalism, libertarian socialism, or something even farther left. (That said, The Nation does have a front page article up from Chomsky! Good on them.)
After 2016, I noticed that many progressive outlets spent some time dipping their toes into neoliberalism -- lots of subtly pro-capitalist and pro-interventionist pieces, basically cheerleading the pre-2016 global order -- and as a result I tuned out from most of them. This may have changed? I revisited some of the names you mentioned and I don't see it so strongly anymore.
But RT openly lies and misleads. So it's not a narrative you can actually consider useful. Chinese propaganda is a bit more honest but omits a lot and is focused on diverting/misleading on key policy issues, see Uighur camps
Yes, exactly.
It's not like the US media hasn't been successfully spreading it's own global propaganda for ages.
An end to the US's media/academic monopoly on truth-setting is a very welcome change. We need real competition here.
It's not like the US media hasn't been successfully spreading it's own global propaganda for ages.
An end to the US's media/academic monopoly on truth-setting is a very welcome change. We need real competition here.
I agree that competition of some kind could be welcome, but welcoming the state sponsored propaganda of autocratic, corrupt and repressive states just because their own hegemonic desires conflict with those of the US strikes me as being the most politically facile stance imaginable.
The problem here is that the media of democratic and not so repressive states failed us miserably. It's not that almost all of them joined in unison when Afghanistan was attacked, and in a similar way during the invasion on Iraq that ultimately gave birth to ISIS. Even discussions on current copyright and patent laws are avoided. (As a thought experiment, imagine the Gates Foundation supporting generic equivalents of expensive drugs and going to a war with the Big Pharma; that's unthinkable, even though many more lives could be saved in this way - see the case of Sofosbuvir.) You need to be in line with the American values and ways of thinking or else you face trouble. This happens on so many levels people even stopped paying attention, let alone questioning it.
Not true. I think you're conflating content with the traditional (for-profit) distribution mediums.
For-profit channels distribute profitable ideas. Profitsble ideas have mass appeal. Unsurprising.
However, there are no social pressure to write for the mainstream (beyond the practical constraints of our capitalist society). Social media has empowered counter-culture narratives toward both good and bad ends.
Go criticize the state in China and compare your experience with the US - guess which state will "fail"
For-profit channels distribute profitable ideas. Profitsble ideas have mass appeal. Unsurprising.
However, there are no social pressure to write for the mainstream (beyond the practical constraints of our capitalist society). Social media has empowered counter-culture narratives toward both good and bad ends.
Go criticize the state in China and compare your experience with the US - guess which state will "fail"
I get your point, but in the West they'll smear you and try to strangle you economically, if you're one of these small, independent outlets. Also, platforms like YouTube is where the audience is, but you'd get ads pulled as soon as you mention something like Iran etc.
I suspect that any competition would always be portrayed as autocratic, corrupt and repressive, as we are influenced by the other side of the propaganda. Not that this is a lie. I really think that you will find some degree of repression, autocratism and corruption in any state seeking to attain or trying to keep some degree of global power and facing some opposition.
I don't think whataboutism is automatically wrong. But in the context of hn threads on China, I feel it often adds an unhelpful layer of abstraction.
It's never clear if people doing the whatabouting actually dispute the negative characterization of China, or whether they agree with it but also want to change the subject to a broader topic in way the unfocuses the lense of the conversation.
The moral condemnation of what China is doing is not information I want to be lost from the conversation, and that seems to always be an effect of the whatabouting.
It's never clear if people doing the whatabouting actually dispute the negative characterization of China, or whether they agree with it but also want to change the subject to a broader topic in way the unfocuses the lense of the conversation.
The moral condemnation of what China is doing is not information I want to be lost from the conversation, and that seems to always be an effect of the whatabouting.
The degree and ends do matter. Chinese autocratic actions are not equivalent to the shaping of American discourse by for-profit institutions.
I will trust the one that has codified free speech - however flawed.
I will trust the one that has codified free speech - however flawed.
Maybe hypothetically. But in this case we know that we're talking about China so there's no need to speculate about relative autocracy, corruption and repression.
Honestly, the way flagship american news corporations publish fawning hagiographies of people like McCain and Bush and Obama and Bill Gates, justify and promote wars, etc. it's really not meaningfully distinct from "statist" equivalents.
Americans criticize countries singing anthems and making military parades and all that stuff, while seemingly completely unaware of Mt. Rushmore, anthems and jets in sports games, etc.
Americans criticize countries singing anthems and making military parades and all that stuff, while seemingly completely unaware of Mt. Rushmore, anthems and jets in sports games, etc.
When you already have a bunch of fires burning setting more fires makes them compete for oxygen, but that doesn't help living things.
I would say the proper reaction to bullshit is critical thinking. Take someone like James Randi, and imagine instead of disproving deceptions he had just pretended to receive a message from spirits that this or that person was faking something. That's "competition" alright, but it's not helping, and it just helps normalizes something that has greater potential for abuse than use.
I would say the proper reaction to bullshit is critical thinking. Take someone like James Randi, and imagine instead of disproving deceptions he had just pretended to receive a message from spirits that this or that person was faking something. That's "competition" alright, but it's not helping, and it just helps normalizes something that has greater potential for abuse than use.
Critical thinking is good, but we have a system that only applies it to ideas that it doesn't like and a culture of hostility towards applying it to it's own sacred ideals.
The result of this system is not truth.
The result of this system is propaganda successful disguised as objectivity...
which is exactly what you need in order to effectively manipulate a democracy.
The result of this system is not truth.
The result of this system is propaganda successful disguised as objectivity...
which is exactly what you need in order to effectively manipulate a democracy.
> Critical thinking is good, but we have a system that only applies it to ideas that it doesn't like and a culture of hostility towards applying it to it's own sacred ideals.
Yes, and it makes it all the more damning, because it kinda shows we know how logic works, what standards or principles are, but for "social reasons" we can suspend that.
> Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. [..] Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
-- George Orwell
This now split up into more echo chambers, little "orthodoxies", but the sum of that is not truth either.
Yes, and it makes it all the more damning, because it kinda shows we know how logic works, what standards or principles are, but for "social reasons" we can suspend that.
> Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. [..] Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.
-- George Orwell
This now split up into more echo chambers, little "orthodoxies", but the sum of that is not truth either.
James Randi has been caught outright lying and is not to be relied on:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11270453/...
http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/2013/04/randis-involvem...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11270453/...
http://zthoughtcriminal.blogspot.com/2013/04/randis-involvem...
Thanks, I had no idea, but that was really just an example I made up on the spot. In some cases, you can fight wildfires with fire, but that's also besides the point, which isn't about James Randi or fire but propaganda and deception, and how best to counter it.
RT is great Russian international competition, but I haven't seen China to do something similar. Do you know a good one?
True, if you know it's a state sponsored TV you can look at it with objectivity glasses. But not all think about putting two and two together--and honestly some can't...hook, line, and sinker.
... I wouldn't really call RT a foreign propaganda site. Frankly, and perhaps I'm myself biased, they provide less propagandic of an assessment of Western events than nearly every one of our mainstream media outlets that I can think of.
Regarding what the article is referring to, things like the Washington Post allowing China to buy ads or China funding lobbyists who speak to congressman who likely have no idea, I can't see anybody justifying that, unless they hate the US, which okay, that's your prerogative.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that the average person is at least two orders of magnitude less endowed with information than the people you might speak with on HN, whether or not any of our opinions are correct, so even a tiny bit of propaganda reaching enough people can change minds against the interest of the country.
I think this should've been illegal 50 years ago, and I think the people abetting this should be tried for treason, almost by the very definition.
Regarding what the article is referring to, things like the Washington Post allowing China to buy ads or China funding lobbyists who speak to congressman who likely have no idea, I can't see anybody justifying that, unless they hate the US, which okay, that's your prerogative.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that the average person is at least two orders of magnitude less endowed with information than the people you might speak with on HN, whether or not any of our opinions are correct, so even a tiny bit of propaganda reaching enough people can change minds against the interest of the country.
I think this should've been illegal 50 years ago, and I think the people abetting this should be tried for treason, almost by the very definition.
It is not good to confuse what RT and Ruptly etc. are meant to be.
Their purpose is to pretend to be serious news outlets to amplify various social media phenomena by selectively reporting about them and repeating this over and over again, with the purpose of legitimizing the phenomenae.
The message that comes out is aligned to the goals of the Russian Federation. The messages that are repeated are chosen for political purposes. The point is to not speak to Russians but to the "disgruntled people" of the West. The main idea seems to be to amplify divisions, whatever those may be.
For instance, just look at what is coming now out related to the "Yellow Vests" in France.
These sites are not a channel for presenting facts or a "counterbalance to Western media". They are simpleton propaganda outlets, news theater that is one part of the media influence mechanism that the Russian leadership wields.
The narrative in the prominent articles is always quite predictable: NATO equals bad, USA equals culture imperialism, Europe equals falling apart, Ukrainians equals fascists, Russia the underdog does nothing wrong, and so on.
Once RT starts running articles detailing the corruption in Russia and why there is an opposition movement in the first place (hint: not due to foreign involvement) it might start gaining plausibility as an outlet for high quality fact-based journalism.
Their purpose is to pretend to be serious news outlets to amplify various social media phenomena by selectively reporting about them and repeating this over and over again, with the purpose of legitimizing the phenomenae.
The message that comes out is aligned to the goals of the Russian Federation. The messages that are repeated are chosen for political purposes. The point is to not speak to Russians but to the "disgruntled people" of the West. The main idea seems to be to amplify divisions, whatever those may be.
For instance, just look at what is coming now out related to the "Yellow Vests" in France.
These sites are not a channel for presenting facts or a "counterbalance to Western media". They are simpleton propaganda outlets, news theater that is one part of the media influence mechanism that the Russian leadership wields.
The narrative in the prominent articles is always quite predictable: NATO equals bad, USA equals culture imperialism, Europe equals falling apart, Ukrainians equals fascists, Russia the underdog does nothing wrong, and so on.
Once RT starts running articles detailing the corruption in Russia and why there is an opposition movement in the first place (hint: not due to foreign involvement) it might start gaining plausibility as an outlet for high quality fact-based journalism.
>> Their purpose is to pretend to be serious news outlets to amplify various social media phenomena by selectively reporting about them and repeating this over and over again, with the purpose of legitimizing the phenomenae.
In comparison to major US outlets? I get what you're saying, and agree that they place a halo on Russia, but, I would argue instead that you can get a much more holistic view of what is actually happening in the West from RT than what's being sold you to us on a TV screen in the US. From what I've seen, it doesn't look like RT is sparking anything that isn't already brewing and should not be covered.
There are very serious issues and changes brewing in France and all over Europe that OUR media is obscuring and even dismissing.
For one example (of many), regarding the Yellow Vest situation, Paris is on the verge of open revolution, but, up until about a week ago, most of the US outlets, especially the liberal ones (sorry, but it's true), portrayed peace and harmony in France and would mention Macron as some kind of noble visionary in contrast to Trump - not once did I see a mention of how his polling numbers were precipitously dropping to the lowest in modern history, among a myriad of other indicators. That, to me, is propaganda.
The word "division" is thrown a lot now, but conflict is inevitable, and I think the greater sin in our media has been obscuring issues behind a TV screen until things reach a climax.
In comparison to major US outlets? I get what you're saying, and agree that they place a halo on Russia, but, I would argue instead that you can get a much more holistic view of what is actually happening in the West from RT than what's being sold you to us on a TV screen in the US. From what I've seen, it doesn't look like RT is sparking anything that isn't already brewing and should not be covered.
There are very serious issues and changes brewing in France and all over Europe that OUR media is obscuring and even dismissing.
For one example (of many), regarding the Yellow Vest situation, Paris is on the verge of open revolution, but, up until about a week ago, most of the US outlets, especially the liberal ones (sorry, but it's true), portrayed peace and harmony in France and would mention Macron as some kind of noble visionary in contrast to Trump - not once did I see a mention of how his polling numbers were precipitously dropping to the lowest in modern history, among a myriad of other indicators. That, to me, is propaganda.
The word "division" is thrown a lot now, but conflict is inevitable, and I think the greater sin in our media has been obscuring issues behind a TV screen until things reach a climax.
No. It is not a holistic view or a broader perspective or things like that. It is about viewing from a narrow angle and calling it the whole truth.
France24 reported that the number of protesters is slightly down and that the Netherlands have also had peaceful protests.
Times in UK reported that "hundreds of online accounts linked to Russia" were used to fire up the demonstrations. Disinformation and pictures of injured protesters from other events were used to tell a story of brutal French authorities.
Guess what RT and friends bring up in their reporting, and how they present it?
France24 reported that the number of protesters is slightly down and that the Netherlands have also had peaceful protests.
Times in UK reported that "hundreds of online accounts linked to Russia" were used to fire up the demonstrations. Disinformation and pictures of injured protesters from other events were used to tell a story of brutal French authorities.
Guess what RT and friends bring up in their reporting, and how they present it?
Paris is definitely not on the verge of revolution.
Source: I live in Paris.
Source: I live in Paris.
Can you give example of dissident voices in the US? why do they need RT when they already have Intercept, Medium, BuzzFeed; Fox News or CNBC; Drudge Report or Mother Jones; Breitbart or Daily Kos, etc?
Julian Assange? Edward Snowden? Manning? Don't think local news really want to touch those subjects or at least not elaborate.
In comparison, RT, etc. Is almost rubbing it in people's faces even now that it feels overdone.
In comparison, RT, etc. Is almost rubbing it in people's faces even now that it feels overdone.
Kind of hard to make that argument when The Intercept was on the list.
> Can you give example of dissident voices in the US?
Really? How about: Occupy Wall Street, BLM, Anonymous, sovereign citizen/militia groups, pipeline protesters, anti factory farm agitators, union activists, socialists, alt-righters, Antifa, straight up Nazis, Nation of Islam, the list goes on.
I don't agree with the positions of the vast majority of these groups, but I do think that it's important that we understand what they try to do and why they are trying to do it. Existing media outlets (even so-called "alt media") provide grossly distorted views of events associated with these groups, if they report on them at all.
Really? How about: Occupy Wall Street, BLM, Anonymous, sovereign citizen/militia groups, pipeline protesters, anti factory farm agitators, union activists, socialists, alt-righters, Antifa, straight up Nazis, Nation of Islam, the list goes on.
I don't agree with the positions of the vast majority of these groups, but I do think that it's important that we understand what they try to do and why they are trying to do it. Existing media outlets (even so-called "alt media") provide grossly distorted views of events associated with these groups, if they report on them at all.
Which of them are not covered by either of the above sources?
He doesn't mean that these platforms ignores existence of these groups, he says that they cannot provide place and sufficient time for these groups to express their positions in their own words, not distorted opinions and distorted facts in a way suitable for media corporations and their owners.
Anything that may not be considered politically correct?
Very well covered by Fox and endless far right blogs and other publications ... I can't imagine there's been a time in history when more content of that sort was available.
That’s what we had Gawker for.
The best propaganda is whatever truth the other side is avoiding.
That's an excellent point. Strange enough, you described the original ethos of google news. Google news was created in the mid 2000s to give a broad and counterbalancing view of news. It was intended to show not only what "we" were saying about an event, but also what "they" were saying about it. This naturally didn't sit well with our news industry and it didn't well with their news industry and they pressured google to curate and localize the news. For a brief period of time, when idealists ran google, google news offered a broad view of the world. Sadly, now everything is localized, even search.
One thing to keep in mind, as biased as it can be the media in the West is based on a journalistic tradition that lets it operate free from government interference. The media in authoritarian countries like China and Russia has no such tradition and has, from inception, existed to advance the government's positions. This does not mean the West is free from bias but no one really is.
So while Western journalistic outlets may be far from perfect, you have the opportunity with them to get less politically biased information. The best of them are actually quite good at providing factual, less biased information. The same is not true of China and Russia. One tradition offers more truthful and factual reporting than the other (which in reality offers nothing less than full on governmental propaganda... especially in the case of the Chinese media. They provide a counter narrative in the same way that the Saudis have provided a counter narrative to the Khashoggi murder).
So while Western journalistic outlets may be far from perfect, you have the opportunity with them to get less politically biased information. The best of them are actually quite good at providing factual, less biased information. The same is not true of China and Russia. One tradition offers more truthful and factual reporting than the other (which in reality offers nothing less than full on governmental propaganda... especially in the case of the Chinese media. They provide a counter narrative in the same way that the Saudis have provided a counter narrative to the Khashoggi murder).
Yes, if you had to choose between Western and other sources of journalism, you'd probably have a higher chance of getting reliable facts from Western sources. But there's no need to make that choice.
You can read a diverse selection of sources and compare their reporting to not only get a more accurate approximation of the truth, but also to notice what various sides focus on. The latter means that even if one side only publishes complete lies, the things they choose to lie about still tell you something.
You can read a diverse selection of sources and compare their reporting to not only get a more accurate approximation of the truth, but also to notice what various sides focus on. The latter means that even if one side only publishes complete lies, the things they choose to lie about still tell you something.
Also, nothing prevents China and Russia from having their own newspapers in the West... and they are going to have them... so it's not like reading Chinese or Russian propaganda gives anyone info they couldn't access otherwise.
> foreign propaganda has some utility. I don't trust Chinese or Russian state media to report on internal Chinese/Russian affairs honestly, but they can provide a worthwhile counter narrative to the West on certain international issues
A bit bizarre, to attempt to legitimize lies and manipulation, but I guess I'm not surprised to see that kind of comment these days.
Authoritarian governments' interest in manipulating foreign audiences is as strong as their interest in manipulating domestic audiences. The article describes massive Chinese investment in it, and Russia's investment in it is well known; as we know, both operate even on the micro-level, such as on social media and in Internet forums. In the comment below I linked to a study that describes it as a massive and effective campaign "political warfare":
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18638027
Lies are not a counter-narrative; they don't improve your understanding; they are just lies.
A bit bizarre, to attempt to legitimize lies and manipulation, but I guess I'm not surprised to see that kind of comment these days.
Authoritarian governments' interest in manipulating foreign audiences is as strong as their interest in manipulating domestic audiences. The article describes massive Chinese investment in it, and Russia's investment in it is well known; as we know, both operate even on the micro-level, such as on social media and in Internet forums. In the comment below I linked to a study that describes it as a massive and effective campaign "political warfare":
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18638027
Lies are not a counter-narrative; they don't improve your understanding; they are just lies.
Worth noting that the very same Guardian is running a propaganda campaign against Assange, despite them benefiting handsomely from WikiLeaks.
Just recently they published a story[1] that has yet to be verified by anyone else and seems completely made up at this point.
At the same time, they did not have problems with running ads for when MBS was visiting London.
1 - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...
Just recently they published a story[1] that has yet to be verified by anyone else and seems completely made up at this point.
At the same time, they did not have problems with running ads for when MBS was visiting London.
1 - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-hel...
First I want to say, great graphic on the article, with the RSS sails.
Related: A study by a leading U.S. defense think tank on intense, active warfare, on the part of China and Russia, in the political realm:
https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/countering-comp...
The Chinese and Russian governments are currently waging political warfare against the United States and its allies. Although efforts to manipulate public opinion and political debate often receive less attention than armed interventions or military modernization programs, Beijing and Moscow are embarked upon campaigns to suppress dissent, discourage foreign narratives they oppose, generate support for policies they favor, keep their rivals distracted, and mitigate pushback against overt acts of aggression. To date, these efforts appear to be having success.
Related: A study by a leading U.S. defense think tank on intense, active warfare, on the part of China and Russia, in the political realm:
https://csbaonline.org/research/publications/countering-comp...
The Chinese and Russian governments are currently waging political warfare against the United States and its allies. Although efforts to manipulate public opinion and political debate often receive less attention than armed interventions or military modernization programs, Beijing and Moscow are embarked upon campaigns to suppress dissent, discourage foreign narratives they oppose, generate support for policies they favor, keep their rivals distracted, and mitigate pushback against overt acts of aggression. To date, these efforts appear to be having success.
Western propaganda is so subtle that it is sold through various channels: area studies in Universities; fellowships, stipends, travel grants, visiting professorships, etc. Produce so-called research papers, then quote each other and peddle further. Remember those professors at OxBridge working as spies.
Western? You already forgot about discussion of Chinese student groups at US universities?
If anything, Chinese propaganda is both subtle and obvious. Nothing wrong with that really. PR is part of the game for anybody. Just don't pretend they do it at lesser level or not as well than the West.
If anything, Chinese propaganda is both subtle and obvious. Nothing wrong with that really. PR is part of the game for anybody. Just don't pretend they do it at lesser level or not as well than the West.
A clone of RT (Russia Today)
You just have to approach it all critically.